ArticleScientific reports2024
Assessment of smell disturbances 6 months after COVID-19 in Polish population.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Symptom Trajectories and Long-Term Sequelae of COVID-19: A Matched Case-Control Study with Population-Based Controls.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- SARS-CoV-2-induced sensory perturbations: A narrative review of clinical phenotypes, molecular pathologies, and possible interventions.Brain, behavior, & immunity - health · 2025Review
- Assessment of Post-COVID-19 Changes in Brain-Clinical and Imaging Evaluation Using MRI Vessel Wall Imaging and Complementary MRI Methods.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Considering the frequency and severity of olfactory disorders associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, attention to the olfactory loss has expanded. The aim of our study was to assess of smell disturbances 6 months after COVID-19. The study population consisted of 2 groups: 196 Post-COVID-19 patients who were hospitalized because of COVID-19, control sample-130 patients without reported smell disorders from general population-Bialystok PLUS study. People from both groups were asked to participate in the Sniffin Sticks Test (half year after the disease). Sniffin Sticks Test consisted of 12 standardized smell samples. The participant's test score was counted based on correct scent recognition. Middle/older age was related with lower likelihood of olfaction recovery. The biggest differences in recognition of particular fragrances were observed for: orange and lemon, lemon and coffee (p.adj < 0.001). Patients had the greatest problem in assessing smell of lemon. The comparison of scores between Delta, Omicron, Wild Type, Wild Type Alpha waves showed statistically significant difference between Delta and Wild Type waves (p = 0.006). Duration of the disease (r = 0.218), age (r = -0.253), IL-6 (r = -0.281) showed significant negative correlations with the score. Statistically significant variables in the case of smell disorders were Omicron wave (CI = 0.045-0.902; P = 0.046) and Wild Type wave (CI = 0.135-0.716; P = 0.007) compared to Delta wave reference. Moreover, patients with PLT count below 150 000/μl had greater olfactory disorders than those with PLT count over 150 000/μl. There are: smell differences between post-COVID-19 patients and healthy population; statistically significant difference between Delta and Wild Type waves in Post-COVID-19 group in score of the Sniffin Sticks Test. Smell disturbances depend on the age, cognitive impairments, clinical characteristics of the COVID-19 disease and sex of the patient.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.