Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39001921›Full record

ArticleEuropean 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 Surgery2024

A novel olfactory sorting task.

Shubin Li, Anne Wolter, Christine Kelly, Barry Smith, Katie Whitcroft, Harry Sherwood, Beth Longley, Thomas Hummel

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in 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, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Shubin LiDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Smell & Taste Clinic, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany. amberli9634@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4551-9995
Anne WolterDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Smell & Taste Clinic, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Christine KellyAbScent, 14 London Street, Andover, Hampshire, UK.
Barry SmithInstitute of Philosophy, School of Advanced Study, University of London, London, UK.
Katie WhitcroftDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Smell & Taste Clinic, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Harry SherwoodAbScent, 14 London Street, Andover, Hampshire, UK.
Beth LongleyInstitute of Cognitive Neuroscience, UCL, London, UK.
Thomas HummelDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Smell & Taste Clinic, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study aimed to develop a simple self-administered screening tool for odor memory, which allowed users to self-test their olfactory function repeatedly even at home.

methodsOne hundred and ten participants were recruited (30 men, age = 50.1 ± 9.9 years; 80 women, age = 47.1 ± 11.5 years); half of them were heathy volunteers, the other half were patients with olfactory dysfunction. Fifty-one healthy participants volunteered for a retest within an interval of a maximum of 14 days. Olfactory function was assessed using the extended Sniffin' Sticks test (SST) comprising tests for odor threshold, identification, and discrimination. All participants received the Novel Olfactory Sorting Task (NOST) which is based on the sorting of 12 matching pairs of odors involving olfactory and cognitive functions. After that, all participants rated questions related to their test performance and the practicability of the test.

resultsConsistent with the previous literature, significant effects of age were found. Results showed an acceptable test-retest reliability and a satisfactory validity of the NOST. The NOST score not only had positive correlations with SST, but also was capable of differentiating severe hyposmia/anosmia from normosmia by the score of 5.5 (sensitivity of 76.2%, specificity of 77.6%).

conclusionThe present study showed the good reliability, validity, and possible clinical usefulness of the NOST. As a self-performed screening test, it can be comprehended and conducted easily, which may provide a quick and simple approach to obtaining a global estimation of olfactory and cognitive functions.

Indexed as

OdorantsOlfaction DisordersSensory ThresholdsSmellAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsEarly diagnosis of olfactory dysfunctionMemory match gameOdor memoryOlfactory testSelf-administered test

Identifiers

PMID39001921
PMCPMC11512826

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.