ArticleClinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2026
Impacts of different treatment methods on patients with COVID-related olfactory dysfunction: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Article in Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOlfactory Dysfunction (OD) is a prevalent neurological sequela of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) and substantially impairs quality of life. Although multiple pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions have been proposed, their relative efficacy remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of existing interventions for post-COVID-19 OD.
methodsPubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched up to July 31, 2025. Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and non-RCT studies evaluating interventions for post-COVID-19 OD were included. Study quality was assessed using the National Institutes of Health (NIH) scale and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Data were analyzed using RStudio and Stata. The interventions were ranked by Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) values.
resultsA total of 44 studies involving 3,516 patients and 26 interventions were included, with overall moderate to high quality. Chelators (Standardized Mean Difference [SMD = 3.61], 95% Credible Interval [CrI]: 2.77, 4.55) significantly improved total olfactory scores and their subdomains (with SUCRA values of 98.2%). Platelet-rich plasma (SMD = 1.33, 95% CrI: 0.92, 1.74) markedly improved the results of the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT). Corticosteroids substantially improved olfactory function, as revealed by the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) (SMD = 1.99, 95% CrI: 0.52, 3.48). Functional Septorhinoplasty (FSPR) demonstrated superior improvement in sinonasal-related quality of life, as measured by the 22-item Sino-nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) (SMD = -1.06, 95% CrI: -1.91, -0.21).
conclusionChelators and chelators combined with other interventions demonstrated benefit in improving post-COVID-19 olfactory function, offering new directions for multi-target therapies. Further high-quality RCTs are required to confirm these findings.
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.