ArticleScientific reports2024
Development and validation of the MultiScent-20 digital odour identification test using item response theory.
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.
- Clinical Application and Limitations of a Digitalized Olfactory Function Test Including Threshold, Discrimination, and Identification Subsets.Clinical and experimental otorhinolaryngology · 2025Article
- The importance of olfactory and trigeminal event-related potentials (OERPs/TERPs) in the assessment of olfactory function in subjects with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis.Journal of applied biomedicine · 2025Article
- Observational
- Validation of the Olfato-UP olfactory test for the Brazilian population.Brazilian journal of otorhinolaryngologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Although validated and reliable psychophysical tests of olfactory function are available, an easy-to-use and feasible test has yet to be developed. This study aimed to design a digital odour identification test, evaluate its validity, assess its reliability, establish a normative curve, and explore the impact of demographic factors. The odour identification test was presented with the Multiscent-20, a hand-held, tablet-like digital scent device that features an integrated odour digital delivery system. The identification performance on the 20 odours was assessed using item response theory (IRT). The normative curve was established by administering the test to a large sample of participants (n = 1299). The mean identification score was 17.5 (SD = 2.1). The two-parameter logistic IRT model provided the best fit, revealing variation in item discrimination and difficulty parameters. Educational attainment influenced performance, with primary education associated with lower scores. Additionally, sex was not found to be associated with performance. This study provides initial evidence supporting the validity and reliability of use of the Multiscent-20 as a digital odour identification test. The test's automation and portability enable the standardized delivery of olfactory stimuli and efficient automatic recording and scoring of responses.
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.