ArticleScientific reports2024
Comparative analyses of post-infectious olfactory dysfunction between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 cases.
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 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.
- Lost and Found: Is Olfactory Recovery More Promising After COVID-19 Than Other Causes, Even 2 Years Later?International forum of allergy & rhinology · 2026Article
- Changes in the Epidemiology of Pediatric Olfactory Dysfunction Before and After COVID-19 Pandemic.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2026Article
- Cortical morphology alterations in non-COVID-19 post-infectious olfactory dysfunction.Scientific reports · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To identify the differences between COVID-19-associated and non-COVID-19-associated olfactory dysfunction (OD), we analyzed demographic and clinical characteristics based on the causative virus (COVID versus non-COVID groups) in patients with post-infectious olfactory dysfunction (PIOD) who underwent the olfactory questionnaire and olfactory function test. Out of 169 patients with PIOD, 99 were diagnosed with COVID-19 (COVID group), while 70 were not (non-COVID group). The COVID group was younger and had a higher percentage of male patients as well as patients with parosmia than the non-COVID group. In the initial olfactory function tests, the TDI, discrimination and identification scores were significantly higher in the COVID group than in the non-COVID group. TDI scores were significantly increased in patients with PIOD after treatment, regardless of the group. The threshold score was significantly increased by 1.38 in the COVID group while the identification score was significantly increased by 2.67 in the non-COVID group. Patients with COVID-19-associated OD were younger in age, tended to be male, had a higher incidence of parosmia, and had better initial olfactory function test results compared to those with non-COVID-19-associated OD. Following treatment, odor detection threshold improved in the COVID group, whereas odor identification improved in the non-COVID group.
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.