Objective To evaluate the prevalence and characteristics of olfactory or gustatory dysfunction in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. Study Design Multicenter case series. Setting Five tertiary care hospitals (3 in China, 1 in France, 1 in Germany). Subjects and Methods In total, 394 polymerase chain reaction (PCR)–confirmed COVID-19-positive patients were screened, and those with olfactory or gustatory dysfunction were included. Data including demographics, COVID-19 severity, patient outcome, and the incidence and degree of olfactory and/or gustatory dysfunction were collected and analyzed. The Questionnaire of Olfactory Disorders (QOD) and visual analog scale (VAS) were used to quantify olfactory and gustatory dysfunction, respectively. All subjects at 1 hospital (Shanghai) without subjective olfactory complaints underwent objective testing. Results Of 394 screened subjects, 161 (41%) reported olfactory and/or gustatory dysfunction and were included. Incidence of olfactory and/or gustatory disorders in Chinese (n = 239), German (n = 39), and French (n = 116) cohorts was 32%, 69%, and 49%, respectively. The median age of included subjects was 39 years, 92 of 161 (57%) were male, and 10 of 161 (6%) were children. Of included subjects, 10% had only olfactory or gustatory symptoms, and 19% had olfactory and/or gustatory complaints prior to any other COVID-19 symptom. Of subjects with objective olfactory testing, 10 of 90 demonstrated abnormal chemosensory function despite reporting normal subjective olfaction. Forty-three percent (44/102) of subjects with follow-up showed symptomatic improvement in olfaction or gustation. Conclusions Olfactory and/or gustatory disorders may represent early or isolated symptoms of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. They may serve as a useful additional screening criterion, particularly for the identification of patients in the early stages of infection.
Objective/Hypothesis With the COVID‐19 pandemic, chemosensory dysfunction are among the most prevalent symptoms. Most reports are subjective evaluations, which have been suggested to be unreliable. The objective is to test chemosensory dysfunction and recovery based on extensive psychophysical tests in COVID‐19 during the course of the disease. Study Design Prospective cohort study. Methods A total of 111 patients from four centers participated in the study. All tested positive for SARS‐COV‐2 with RT‐PCR. They were tested within 3 days of diagnosis and 28 to 169 days after infection. Testing included extensive olfactory testing with the Sniffin' Sticks test for threshold, discrimination and identification abilities, and with the Taste Sprays and Taste Strips for gustatory function for quasi‐threshold and taste identification abilities. Results There was a significant difference in olfactory function during and after infection. During infection 21% were anosmic, 49% hyposmic, and 30% normosmic. After infection only 1% were anosmic, 26% hyposmic, and 73% normosmic. For gustatory function, there was a difference for all taste qualities, but significantly in sour, bitter, and total score. Twenty‐six percent had gustatory dysfunction during infection and 6.5% had gustatory dysfunction after infection. Combining all tests 22% had combined olfactory and gustatory dysfunction during infection. After infection no patients had combined dysfunction. Conclusions Chemosensory dysfunction is very common in COVID‐19, either as isolated smell or taste dysfunction or a combined dysfunction. Most people regain their chemosensory function within the first 28 days, but a quarter of the patients show persisting dysfunction, which should be referred to specialist smell and taste clinics for rehabilitation of chemosensory function. Level of Evidence 3 Laryngoscope, 131:1095–1100, 2021
Introduction: Recent reports suggest that sudden smell loss might be a symptom of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The aim of this study was to investigate the frequency of olfactory loss in an outpatient population who presented to a coronavirus testing center during a 2-week period and to evaluate the diagnostic value of the symptom "sudden smell loss" for screening procedures. Methods: In this cross-sectional controlled cohort study, 500 patients who presented with symptoms of a common cold to a corona testing center and fulfilled corona testing criteria completed a standardized diagnostic questionnaire which included the patients' main symptoms, time course, and an additional self-assessment of the patients' current smell, taste function, and nasal breathing compared to the level before the onset of symptoms. Results: Out of the 500 patients, 69 presented with olfactory loss. Twenty-two of them subsequently tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Only 12 out of the patients without olfactory loss tested positive, resulting in a frequency of 64.7% for the symptom "sudden smell loss" in COVID-19 patients. Compared to COVID-19 patients without smell loss, they were significantly younger and less severely affected. Changes in nasal airflow were significantly more pronounced in SARS-CoV-2 negative patients with olfactory complaints compared to the patients with smell loss who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. By excluding patients with a blocked nose, the symptom "sudden smell loss" can be attested a high specificity (97%) and a sensitivity of 65% with a positive predictive value of 63% and negative predictive value of 97% for COVID-19. Conclusion: Considering the high frequency of smell loss in non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients, acute olfactory impairment should be recognized as an early symptom of the disease and should be tested for on a regular basis. In contrast to other acute viral smell impairment, CO-VID-19-associated smell loss seems to be only rarely accompanied by a severely blocked nose.
interpretation of data, 102 writing, revising it critically. All of them agreement to be accountable for all aspects of 103 the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of 104 the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. 105 106 Abstract 123
Introduction: Recent reports suggest that sudden smell loss might be a symptom of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The aim of this study was to investigate the frequency of olfactory loss in an out-patient population who presented to a coronavirus testing center during a 2-week period and to evaluate the diagnostic value of the symptom sudden smell loss for screening procedures. Methods: In this cross-sectional controlled cohort study, 500 patients who presented with symptoms of a common cold to a corona testing center and fulfilled corona testing criteria, completed a standardized diagnostic questionnaire which included the patients main symptoms, time course and an additional self-assessment of the patients current smell, taste function and nasal breathing compared to the level before onset of symptoms. Results: Out of the 500 patients, 69 presented with olfactory loss. Twenty-two of them subsequently tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Only twelve out of the patients without olfactory loss tested positive, resulting in a frequency of 64.7% for the symptom sudden smell loss in COVID-19 patients. Compared to COVID-19 patients without smell loss, they were significantly younger and less severely affected. Changes in nasal airflow were significantly more pronounced in SARS-CoV-2 negative patients with olfactory complaints compared to the patients with smell loss who were tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. By excluding patients with a blocked nose, the symptom sudden smell loss can be attested a high specificity (97%) and a sensitivity of 65% with a PPV of 63% and NPV of 97% for COVID-19. Conclusion: Considering the high frequency of smell loss in non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients, acute olfactory impairment should be included in the WHO symptoms list and should be recognized as an early symptom of the disease. In contrast to other acute viral smell impairment, COVID-19 associated smell loss seems to be only rarely accompanied by a severely blocked nose.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.