ArticleInnovation in aging2024
Aging and Olfactory Training: A Scoping Review.
Article in Innovation in aging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrating Sensory Perception and Wearable Monitoring to Promote Healthy Aging: A New Frontier in Nutritional Personalization.Nutrients · 2026Review
- Olfactory Dysfunction and Cognitive Decline: Are They Related?Current allergy and asthma reports · 2025Review
- Intrinsic capacity in Lewy body dementia: a review.The Journal of frailty & aging · 2025Review
- Functional but Not Structural Brain Changes After Olfactory Training in Women With COVID-19-Associated Olfactory Dysfunction.The Laryngoscope · 2025Article
- Ion Channels in Odor Information Processing of Neural Circuits of the Vertebrate Olfactory Bulb.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Mind your nose: A randomized controlled trial of olfactory-based memory training for older people with subjective cognitive decline.Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Decreased olfactory function commonly occurs alongside the aging process. Research suggests olfactory training (OT) has the potential to improve olfactory and cognitive function in individuals with and without olfactory dysfunction. The degree to which these benefits extend into older age and among those with cognitive impairment (i.e., people with dementia and mild cognitive impairment) is less clear. The purpose of the current review was to investigate the extent to which OT affects olfactory function, cognition, and well-being among older people. Research Design and Methods: A scoping review of the literature was conducted in PubMed, Embase, EbscoHost, and SCOPUS. Articles were considered eligible for original research studies with human populations, included adults aged 55 and older, performed any type of OT, and included a form of olfactory testing. The data from the included studies were synthesized and presented narratively. Results: A total of 23 studies were included. The results suggest that OT provides multiple benefits to older adults, including those with cognitive impairment. Particularly, OT was associated with measurable changes in olfactory function, improved cognitive function, specifically semantic verbal fluency and working memory, reduced depressive symptoms, and protection from cognitive decline. Discussion and Implications: The findings suggest that benefits from OT extend beyond changes in olfactory function and include improved cognitive function, amelioration of depressive symptoms, and protection from cognitive decline. Future research is needed across specific participant groups, including those with differentiated types of dementia, to investigate the olfactory and cognitive benefits of OT.
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.