ReviewCaspian journal of internal medicine2025
Olfactory dysfunction in COVID-19; Self-report or olfactory dysfunction test?
Review in Caspian journal of internal medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: COVID-19 developed a sudden onset of smelling disorders. Researchers used self-reported or special tests to study this issue. We aimed to investigate whether quantitative-test smell disorders have a considerable difference from self-reported or not. Methods: We searched 554 studies published between December 2019 to September 2020 by the PICO model. Our search strategies were based on MeSH terms in the electronic databases Web of Science (136 articles), Scopus (84 articles), and PubMed (334 articles). The duplicated articles were excluded, then the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis guidance were utilized. Finally, we divided the studies into two (self-report (33 articles) and specific-test (9 articles)) groups. Results: 33 (80%) articles expressed olfactory dysfunction by self-report of patients and 9(20%) studies were conducted by a specific test. Only three studies, one in self-report; ((internal reliability, Cronbach α = 0.84) and validity (r = -0.60, p < 0.001)) and two in specific-test groups; ((test-retest r=0.94) and another study (test-retest r >0.7)) conducted validity and reliability. Self-reported studies published a various range of prevalence (20% _97%) in patients with COVID-19. COVID-19 patients with a specific-test group were found to have a primary incidence of anosmia of over 65%, even reaching 98% depending on the types of tests. Conclusion: Self-reporting of COVID-19 detection can be affected by sociodemographic factors. Although self-reported questionnaires are economical and easy to use, standardized tests provide more reliable comparisons and professional assessments. Therefore, standardized tests are recommended for more accurate screening over self-reporting.
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.