A Pilot Study of the Snap &amp; Sniff Threshold Test

Jiang, Rong–San; Liang, Kai‐Li

doi:10.1177/0003489418760055

Cited by 8 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A similar phenomenon was found in a previous study. 20 The results of the two different devices for the PEA odour detection threshold test, the Smell Threshold Test and the Snap & Sniff Threshold Test were correlated, and a significant correlation existed for hyposmic and anosmic patients, though not the normosmic subjects. 20 This might be partly explained by the definition of the normosmic subjects in the current study, which were healthy volunteers that self-reported an absence of olfactory deficits without a history of sinonasal symptoms within 1 week before the test.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“… 20 The results of the two different devices for the PEA odour detection threshold test, the Smell Threshold Test and the Snap & Sniff Threshold Test were correlated, and a significant correlation existed for hyposmic and anosmic patients, though not the normosmic subjects. 20 This might be partly explained by the definition of the normosmic subjects in the current study, which were healthy volunteers that self-reported an absence of olfactory deficits without a history of sinonasal symptoms within 1 week before the test. Their olfactory function was not examined to confirm whether they were normosmic using a PEA test because it needs the examinee to take off their facemask in front of the examiner, which is not recommended during the current COVID-19 pandemic status.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Validation of the local applicability of the ‘TIB’ Olfactory Test Device in the era of COVID-19

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To evaluate the validity and test–retest reliability of the novel ‘TIB’ Olfactory Test Device (TIB) and to determine its normative values. Methods The study stratified the study subjects into normosmic, hyposmic and anosmic groups according to their olfactory function. The olfactory function of the subjects was evaluated using both the traditional Chinese version of the University of Pennsylvania of Smell Identification Test (UPSIT-TC) and the TIB. The normosmic group was used to retest with the UPSIT-TC and TIB at an inter-test interval of at least 7 days. The cut-off scores of TIB among the three different groups were determined by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Results This study enrolled 180 subjects: 60 in each group. The mean scores of TIB were 44.1 for the normosmic group, 27.5 for the hyposmic group and 10.9 for the anosmic group. The TIB scores were significantly different across the three groups. There was a significant correlation between the first and second TIB tests ( r = 0.506). The cut-off scores were 41 for normosmic subjects and 24 for hyposmic subjects. Conclusion The validity and test–retest reliability results suggest that the TIB is an appropriate olfactory test for the Taiwanese population.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Validation of the local applicability of the ‘TIB’ Olfactory Test Device in the era of COVID-19

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Snap is a series of olfaction tests similar to Sniffin’ Sticks, but delivers odors via a slide mechanism. Snap measures threshold (1.5–9.5), discrimination (0–22), and identification (0–16) domains 3,6 . Snap TDI score ranges from 1.5 to 47.5.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Snap measures threshold (1.5-9.5), discrimination (0-22), and identification (0-16) domains. 3,6 Snap TDI score ranges from 1.5 to 47.5.…”

Section: Psychophysical Testingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of validated psychophysical olfactory tests and olfactory‐specific quality of life

Shih

Soler

Germroth

et al. 2022

Int Forum Allergy Rhinol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…These tests measure domains of olfaction (eg, threshold, discrimination, identification) and the majority of employed odorants are pleasurable or neutral odors. [11][12][13][14] Psychophysical tests, therefore, provide information on the ability to detect and differentiate odors, but do not necessarily comment on other forms of parosmia, including those related to altered perception in hedonics (eg, phantosmia). One of the earliest olfactory tests reported in scientific literature used a method of chemosensory testing involving 4 odors and 4 domains of olfaction (herein referred to as "Henkin Test").…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of Hedonics and Magnitude Upon Validated Psychophysical Olfactory Tests and Olfactory-Specific Quality of Life

Shih

Soler

Germroth

et al. 2022

Am J Rhinol�Allergy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Patients often describe the olfactory loss as either the inability to detect unpleasant odors (eg, smoke or spoiled food) or noticeable impairment in enjoying pleasant odors (eg, food and fragrances). This complex relationship between the hedonics of various odors, their perceived magnitude in odor strength, and the impact on patient quality of life is not well understood. Methods Sixty-five subjects underwent testing with the Henkin olfaction test which assesses hedonics and magnitude for odors traditionally deemed unpleasant (pyridine/dead fish and thiophene/gasoline) and pleasant (amyl acetate/banana and nitrobenzene/almond). Subjects also completed Smell Identification Test-40 (SIT-40), Sniffin’ Sticks (Sniffin’ Sticks), and Snap & Sniffin’ Sticks (Snap) Olfactory Tests, as well as the 17-item Questionnaire for Olfactory Disorders Negative Statements (QODNS) and olfactory symptom visual analog scale (VAS). Spearman's rank correlations were conducted between various olfactory domains, QODNS and VAS. Results Mean age was 52.1 years (range: 28-86), with 63.1% females. Magnitude estimation was greatest for pyridine. Most people rated thiophene (75.4%) and pyridine (92.3%) as “unpleasant.” Although most people rated amyl acetate (47.7%) and nitrobenzene (56.9%) as “pleasant,” many rated amyl acetate (52.3%) and nitrobenzene (43.1%) as “neutral” or “unpleasant” scents. Hedonics for unpleasant odors correlated with each other ( rs = 0.60), but not with hedonics for pleasant odors. Hedonics for unpleasant odors also correlated with magnitude estimation and other psychophysical tests. These findings were not seen for hedonics of pleasant odors. Conclusions The use of unpleasant odors in Henkin testing showed unique relationship patterns with patient-reported outcome measures and validated olfactory tests, which may provide utility in characterizing olfactory dysfunction. The incorporation of more unpleasant odors in current psychophysical olfactory testing may provide enhanced information regarding the patient impact of olfactory dysfunction.

show abstract

A Pilot Study of the Snap & Sniff Threshold Test

Abstract: Based on validity and test-retest reliability, we concluded that the S&S is a proper test for olfactory thresholds.

Cited by 8 publications

References 9 publications

Validation of the local applicability of the ‘TIB’ Olfactory Test Device in the era of COVID-19

Validation of the local applicability of the ‘TIB’ Olfactory Test Device in the era of COVID-19

Comparison of validated psychophysical olfactory tests and olfactory‐specific quality of life

Impact of Hedonics and Magnitude Upon Validated Psychophysical Olfactory Tests and Olfactory-Specific Quality of Life

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About