ArticleNeuroscience applied2026
Olfactory impairment in Huntington's disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Neuroscience applied, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Huntington's disease (HD) is an autosomal-dominant neurodegenerative disorder characterised by progressive impairment in cognitive, behavioural, and motor functions. Odour identification deficits have long been recognised as a non-motor impairment associated with HD and may thus represent a plausible biomarker candidate for use in the context of clinical trials evaluating novel disease-modifying therapies. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to evaluate whether odour identification is reduced in persons with Huntington's disease (PwHD) compared to healthy controls (HC). The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD420251019430) on April 5th, 2025. Comprehensive searches were conducted across PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Google Scholar, BASE, and WorldCat, including grey literature, up to April 15, 2025. Included studies used case-control and cross-sectional designs involving human participants, comparing PwHD to HC, explicitly reporting sample sizes, documenting the use of psychophysical methods for odour identification, and providing sufficient data to calculate group differences. Eligible publications were peer-reviewed and available in English and non-English. Risk of bias was assessed independently by two reviewers using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklists. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data. The meta-analysis employed a random-effects model using restricted maximum likelihood estimation. Heterogeneity was evaluated via subgroup analyses and meta-regression, and sensitivity analyses examined the robustness of results. Results from all studies identified according to the specified criteria were merged into a single dataset and treated as a whole sample for review. Of the 43 eligible studies, 19 (44.2%) were included, comprising 1745 PwHD and 814 HC. Mean (SD) age at enrolment was 46.1 (5.3) years for PwHD and 44.1 (5.9) years for HC. Meta-analysis revealed a large negative overall difference (θ = -1.294; 95% CI: -1.626 to -0.962; 95% prediction interval: -2.704 to 0.116), confirming significantly lower odour identification accuracy in the PwHD group. Substantial heterogeneity (I
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.