Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42434765›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in allergy2026

Point-of-care smell testing for evaluation of olfactory function: a narrative review of clinical utility.

Akshita Joshi, Haley Ogbemudia, Cailin Cruess, Alicia A Livinski, Rosangele Hall, Ethan Roback, Jasmine Jain, Aarti Sharma, Prestina Smith-Davidson, Mei Xu and 3 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in allergy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

13 authors.

Akshita Joshi *Division of Intramural Research, National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD), National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States.
Haley Ogbemudia *Division of Intramural Research, National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD), National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States.
Cailin Cruess *Division of Intramural Research, National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD), National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States.
Alicia A LivinskiNational Institutes of Health Library, Office of Research Services, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States.
Rosangele HallSection of Sensory Science, and Metabolism, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States.
Ethan RobackDivision of Intramural Research, National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD), National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States.
Jasmine JainDivision of Intramural Research, National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD), National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States.
Aarti SharmaDivision of Intramural Research, National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD), National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States.
Prestina Smith-DavidsonDivision of Intramural Research, National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD), National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States.
Mei XuConcord Fragrances LLC, Bethesda, MD, United States.
Valerie AsherDivision of Intramural Research, National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD), National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States.
Paule V JosephDivision of Intramural Research, National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD), National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States.
Joshua M LevyDivision of Intramural Research, National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD), National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Olfactory dysfunction (OD) is increasingly recognized as a clinically relevant biomarker for a wide range of health conditions, including neurodegenerative diseases, respiratory infections such as COVID-19, psychiatric disorders, and age-related sensory decline. Despite its diagnostic value, olfactory testing remains underutilized in routine clinical care due to challenges related to test accessibility, cultural adaptability, cost and practical implementation. Observations: This narrative review provides a clinically focused synthesis of olfactory tests suitable for point-of-care (POC), focusing on their diagnostic accuracy, administration methods, user-friendliness, and applicability across diverse clinical populations. Commonly used tests such as the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT®) and Sniffin' Sticks® are discussed alongside emerging rapid screening tools, pediatric assessments, and culturally adapted tests. Attention is given to distinguishing screening tools from comprehensive diagnostic batteries and to the role of point-of-care (POC) testing in primary care, neurology, and otorhinolaryngology settings. Practical considerations including assessment time, workflow feasibility, and clinical decision pathways are also examined. This review emphasizes the translation of available psychophysical tests into a practical POC framework for real-world clinical use. Conclusions and relevance: Available olfactory tests vary substantially in diagnostic accuracy, feasibility, and clinical applicability, highlighting the importance of selecting tests based on clinical indication and practice setting. Brief POC tests are best positioned as screening tools, while comprehensive batteries remain necessary when diagnostic precision is required. The main contribution of this review is a clinically oriented framework that distinguishes screening from diagnostic testing and aligns test selection with adult and pediatric clinical scenarios, workflow constraints, and referral needs. A tiered clinical approach using rapid screening followed by targeted comprehensive testing may represent the most practical, cost and time effective strategy for integrating olfactory assessment into routine care. Broader implementation of clinically feasible olfactory testing may improve early disease detection, support clinical decision making, and enhance patient care across conditions associated with OD.

Indexed as

clinical utilitycultural adaptationolfactory dysfunctionpoint-of-care testingpsychophysical olfactory assessment

Identifiers

PMID42434765
PMCPMC13349926

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.