Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41809272›Full record

ReviewCureus2026

Long-Term Olfactory Dysfunction in COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review.

Artemis Zarkadi, Michail Katotomichelakis, Konstantinos Chaidas

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Artemis ZarkadiOtolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, School of Medicine, Democritus University of Thrace, Alexandroupolis, GRC.
Michail KatotomichelakisOtolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, School of Medicine, Democritus University of Thrace, Alexandroupolis, GRC.
Konstantinos ChaidasOtolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, School of Medicine, Democritus University of Thrace, Alexandroupolis, GRC.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Olfactory dysfunction (OD) emerged early in the COVID-19 pandemic as a prevalent and often persistent symptom. While most individuals recover within weeks, a significant proportion continue to suffer from long-term impairments, including both quantitative and qualitative sensory deficits. Our review aimed to summarize current evidence on long-term post-COVID-19 OD with a duration of at least three months, including prevalence, recovery trajectory, and prognostic factors. The PubMed and Scopus databases were searched for relevant studies up to August 2024 following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Twenty-one studies were ultimately included, involving over 4,000 individuals. A remarkable proportion of patients continue to experience persistent dysfunction post-infection for a period ranging from several months to over two years. Qualitative disorders, such as parosmia and phantosmia, frequently appeared during recovery. Prognosis seemed to be related to age, initial severity, duration of OD, co-existing symptoms, and potentially sex. A consistent discrepancy between subjective reports and objective psychophysical test results was observed. Methodological heterogeneity limited comparability across studies. Olfactory dysfunction is a significant and often overlooked long-term complication of COVID-19. Standardized diagnostic criteria, validated outcome measures, and prospective longitudinal research are urgently needed to guide evidence-based management and improve patient outcomes.

Indexed as

anosmiacoronaviruscovid-19hyposmialong covidolfaction disordersolfactoryparosmiasars-cov-2smell

Identifiers

PMID41809272
PMCPMC12969233

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.