SynthesisEuropean journal of neurology2026
The Utility of Olfactory Testing to Discriminate Parkinson's Disease From Diagnostic Mimics: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in European journal of neurology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Utility of Olfactory Testing to Discriminate Parkinson's Disease From Diagnostic Mimics: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.European journal of neurology · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHyposmia is present in most patients with Parkinson's disease (PD), whereas olfaction is usually preserved in its diagnostic mimics. To address the limited evidence from smaller studies, we conducted a meta-analysis on the diagnostic accuracy of olfactory testing in differentiating PD from clinical look-alikes.
methodsA systematic search was performed in PubMed and Web of Science according to the PRISMA guidelines. Studies describing results of validated smell tests in PD patients and at least one differential diagnosis were included. The risk of bias and applicability was assessed with the QUADAS-2 tool. For data synthesis, a hierarchical regression model was employed.
resultsOf 787 publications, 23 studies describing 1957 PD patients, 462 patients with atypical parkinsonian disorders, 239 patients with essential tremor, and 43 patients with secondary parkinsonism were included. The meta-analysis demonstrated a sensitivity of 79% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 72%-84%) and a specificity of 81% (95% CI: 73%-86%) for olfactory dysfunction to differentiate PD from all other disorders combined. Additional analyses showed consistent sensitivities across sub-analyses, with lowest specificities for the distinction from progressive supranuclear palsy, 64% (95% CI: 55%-72%), and highest from essential tremor, 92% (95% CI: 84%-96%).
conclusionOur findings indicate that olfactory testing shows moderate to good diagnostic accuracy in differentiating PD from its main differential diagnoses. While results of olfactory testing alone are insufficient for a definite distinction of PD from non-PD parkinsonism, it represents an easy-to-use and inexpensive test that may be used in combination with other diagnostic tools.
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.