ArticleClinical neuropsychiatry2026
Pharmacological Treatment of Olfactory Reference Disorder: A Systematic Review and Historical Analysis of Treatment Patterns.
Article in Clinical neuropsychiatry, 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
Objective: olfactory Reference Disorder (ORD) is characterized by a persistent preoccupation with the belief of emitting a bad or unpleasant body odor or breath, which is either imperceptible or only minimally perceptible to others. To systematically review studies investigating the pharmacological treatment of Olfactory Reference Disorder (ORD) and explore clinical characteristics, treatment response, and historical changes in pharmacological prescribing patterns. Method: systematic review conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Sociodemographic, clinical, phenomenological, and therapeutic variables were extracted. Results: fifty-two studies (47 case reports, 5 case series, and no controlled clinical trials), totaling 87 patients, were included. Treatment included serotonin reuptake inhibitors in 59.8%, antipsychotics in 52.9%, and both in 22% of cases. The overall treatment response rate was 86.2%, although interpretation is limited by uncontrolled study designs and probable publication bias. A historical analysis revealed that antipsychotics were more frequently prescribed in earlier reports, whereas SRIs became widely used only after the 1990s, reflecting a shift in the conceptualization of ORD toward the obsessive-compulsive spectrum. Also, no statistically significant differences were observed between responders and non-responders regarding sex, illness duration, psychiatric comorbidities, treatment modality, or pharmacological class used. Evidence of publication bias was identified. Conclusions: ORD appears to be a potentially treatable condition, although the available evidence is limited by uncontrolled study designs, heterogeneous outcome measures, and probable publication bias. The shift toward serotonergic treatments parallels the evolving understanding of ORD within the obsessive-compulsive spectrum. Prospective studies using standardized outcome measures are needed..
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.