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
Olfactory training: perspective from people who were disturbed by their smell problems.
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. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impacts of different treatment methods on patients with COVID-related olfactory dysfunction: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2026Article
- The mysterious sense of smell: evolution, historical perspectives, and neurological disorders.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Review
- Real-World Outcomes of 3-Month Olfactory Training on Post-COVID-19 Parosmia.ORL; journal for oto-rhino-laryngology and its related specialties · 2025Article
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
purposeOlfactory training (OT) is an effective and affordable option in the treatment of olfactory dysfunction. Despite significant progress in the field in recent years, some factors influencing OT participation remain unclear.
methodsBased on an anonymous online survey orchestrated by AbScent.org the present study enrolled 450 participants and divided them into OT (n = 161) and No OT (n = 289) groups based on their OT participation. Participants also provided information on demographics, medical history, quality of life, OT duration for those who engaged in OT, and the reasons for non-participation in OT among those who did not.
resultsPatients who had greater loss of quality of life participated more in OT. Similarly, more participation was observed in patients who noticed an improvement in their ability to smell. Notably, most of the sample engaged in OT trained less than four weeks (73%). In the No OT group, the primary barrier to OT participation was the unawareness of OT treatment (37%) and these barriers differed by age, where older people expressed interest but were unaware of OT treatment, while younger individuals exhibited more cautiousness about its effectiveness.
conclusionLower quality of life drives active OT participation. Limited training periods and unawareness of OT serve as potential barriers to olfactory recovery. Clinicians should actively promote the background of OT and underscore the significance of adhering to the "prescribed" training regimen.
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.