Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39210076›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

The digital scent device 20: an automated, self-administered odor identification test.

Agnieszka Sabiniewicz, Sophia Wittig, Antje Haehner, Christopher Müller, Claudia Galvao, Marco Nakanishi, Thomas Hummel

Abstract 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. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. A new framework for the labeling of odors in the Sniffin' Sticks odor identification test: relevance of familiarity and test-retest assessment.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 · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Agnieszka SabiniewiczSmell and Taste Clinic, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany. a.sabiniewicz@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9361-0486
Sophia WittigSmell and Taste Clinic, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Antje HaehnerSmell and Taste Clinic, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Christopher MüllerSmell and Taste Clinic, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Claudia GalvaoNOAR, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Marco NakanishiDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, University Hospital of Brasília UnB-EBSERH, University of Brasilia, Brasilia, Federal District, Brazil.
Thomas HummelSmell and Taste Clinic, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAssessing olfactory function is highly significant in clinical practice, particularly in the context of the recent COVID-19 pandemic. Recent approaches in this field emphasize the importance of reducing the time and cost devoted to olfactory testing procedures. Hence, the aim of the present study was to examine the reliability and basic characteristics of Digital Scent Device 20 (DSD-20), an innovative olfactory test consisting of 20 "universal odors", in a European population.

methodsA total of 88 participants (mean age = 45.1, SD = 20.3) volunteered for the study. The sample consisted of 37 normosmic controls and 51 dysosmic patients.

resultsThe correlation between DSD-20 and the total score in Sniffin' Sticks was high (TDI; R = .80, p < .001), and the test correlated with the individual components of the Sniffin' Sticks test. Furthermore, the correlation coefficient between DSD-20 test and retest was very high (R = .88, p < .001), which was additionally confirmed by a Bland-Altman plot. Essential characteristics of the DSD-20 are its simplicity in self-administration, speed of application, portability, and the fact that it can be reused.

conclusionOverall, the present study confirms previous notions on DSD-20 by demonstrating its high reliability and usefulness in separating patients with hyposmia/anosmia and normosmic controls.

Indexed as

COVID-19OdorantsOlfaction DisordersAdultAgedCase-Control StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsSARS-CoV-2SmellDigital Scent Device 20Odor identification testOlfactionSniffin’ sticks

Identifiers

PMID39210076
PMCPMC11564298

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.