ArticleThe Laryngoscope2025
Intranasal pH and Olfactory Function Among Healthy Adults.
Article in The Laryngoscope, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Global research trends and hotspot evolution of olfactory dysfunction from 2014 to 2024: a bibliometric analysis.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Review
- Intranasal pH and Olfactory Function Among Healthy Adults.The Laryngoscope · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine whether the site of measurement (over respiratory mucosa (RM) or within the olfactory cleft [OC]), olfactory testing, or repeated pH testing affects pH measurements and whether OC pH affects olfactory function.
methodsThis cross-sectional study included 62 healthy adults (38 women, median age: 24 years). They underwent the following measurements: intranasal pH (Restech Dx-pH; Respiratory Technology Corp., Houston, USA) and olfaction ("Sniffin' Sticks" Odor Identification Test [OdorId]; Burghart, Holm, DE). Participants were divided based on the following: sites of testing (RM [n = 27] vs. OC [n = 35]); order of testing (olfactory testing [OdorId] between two pH tests [pH-OdorId-pH, n = 17] versus two pH tests separated by a 20-min interval followed by olfactory testing [pH-pH-OdorId; n = 18]). Comparisons between the first and second pH tests were also performed.
resultsOC pH measurements were significantly lower than RM pH. Repeated pH testing resulted in subsequently more alkaline measurements, while olfactory testing had no effect. Odor identification scores correlated with OC pH but not with RM pH. In an exploratory linear regression model, OC pH predicted 18% of the variance in OdorId scores and was a significant negative predictor of OdorId performance (as pH increases, OdorId decreases).
conclusionThe OC pH is more acidic compared to that over the RM. Increased acidity in the OC was related to better olfactory function, warranting further investigation in olfactory dysfunction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA.
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.