ArticlePloS one2025
Experts' content validation of the parosmia, phantosmia, and anosmia test (PARPHAIT): A qualitative study.
Article in PloS one, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe parosmia, phantosmia, and anosmia test (PARPHAIT) has previously been developed as a tool for capturing quantitative and qualitative symptoms of olfactory dysfunction. Its content validity was evaluated in a patient sample, from a statistical point of view through an exploratory factor analysis, and now in a panel of experts. Based on these evaluations, we present the most recent version. The aim of this study was to evaluate the content of the novel PARPHAIT in an expert panel.
methodsThis was a qualitative interview study with experts in the field of olfaction. The study was done in an international research community on olfactory dysfunction. Thirteen participants (mean age 49.7, 53.8% men) with expertise in the field of smell were interviewed about PARPHAIT's content, format, and applicability. Participants were selected based on their experience in the field of smell and invited to a digital interview.
resultsSuggested improvements of PARPHAIT were provided and evaluated. Alterations were done to the formulation of items and introductory text (i.e., instructions and definitions), as well as aspects covered, and the structure and design of the questionnaire.
conclusionsPARPHAIT was considered a clear, user-friendly tool suitable for a clinical assessment context. Improvements were made based on experts' feedback, leading to a final version of the tool. However, some aspects of PARPHAIT remain open for consideration (e.g., response and scoring design) and more work remains to reach consensus on how the PARPHAIT best can capture symptoms of olfactory dysfunction.
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.