Observational studyClinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2024
Validation of the questionnaire of olfactory disorders (QOD) for the Brazilian population.
Observational study in Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- High sulfur and nitrogen foods are the main triggers of parosmia.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026Article
- Point-of-care smell testing for evaluation of olfactory function: a narrative review of clinical utility.Frontiers in allergy · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe incidence of olfactory disorders has increased in recent years, mainly related to COVID-19 infection. In Brazil, over 37 million cases of COVID-19 have been reported, and approximately 10 % of those cases continue to experience olfactory disorders for more than one month. Despite the significant negative impact on well-being, there is currently no validated instrument to assess how olfactory disorders impact the quality of life in Brazil.
objectivesThis study aimed to validate the Questionnaire of Olfactory Disorders (QOD) for Brazilian Portuguese.
methodsThe authors first performed translation, back-translation, expert review, pre-testing, psychometric evaluation and cultural adaptation of the English version of the questionnaire. To assure linguistic and conceptual equivalence of the translated questionnaire, 126 participants from two Brazilian states and varying degrees of olfactory loss answered the QOD and the World Health Organization Quality of Life bref (WHOQOL-bref) questionnaires. The University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT®) was used to quantify the olfactory loss. Furthermore, to evaluate the reliability of the Portuguese version a test-retest was performed on a subgroup of patients. The authors observed a high Cronbach's alpha (α = 0.86) for internal consistency of the quality of Life (QOD-QOL) statements.
findingsAs expected, there was a negative correlation between QOD-QOL and UPSIT® (Spearman's ρ = -0.275, p = 0.002), since QOL score increases and UPSIT® score decreases with worsening of olfactory function. Correlations were moderate between QOD-QOL and WHOQOL-bref mean (Spearman's ρ = -0.374, p < 0.001) and weak to moderate between the QOD-QOL and Visual Analog Scale of the QOD regarding professional life, leisure, and private life (Spearman's ρ = -0.316, p = 0.000; Spearman's ρ = -0.293, p = 0.001; Spearman's ρ = -0.261, p = 0.004; respectively).
conclusionIn conclusion, the authors have demonstrated a high internal consistency and validity of the Brazilian Portuguese version of the QOD for evaluating the quality of life in individuals with olfactory disorders.
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.