Development of the Arabic version of the “Sniffin’ Sticks” odor identification test

Oleszkiewicz, Anna; Taut, Maria; Sorokowska, Agnieszka; Radwan, Ahmed G.; Kamel, Rasha; Hummel, Thomas

doi:10.1007/s00405-015-3718-2

Cited by 36 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…At last 24 articles were included (see selection flowchart in Figure 1). The studies (16,19,20,28,(39)(40)(41)(42)(43)(44)(45)(46)(47)(48)(49)(50)(51)(52)(53)(54)(55)(56)(57)(58) included for each of the three groups are shown in Table 1. Table 1 showed the demographic characteristics of participants and measures used in odor identification.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We also conducted a subdivision comparison between female and male in the age 16-35 (16,19,20,40,45,47,49,52) . However, compared to the age 18-50, the effect size was relatively small (Cohen's d=0.36, 95% CI: 0.18 to 0.54), though a significant difference (Z = 3.87, p=0.0001) was found that female outperformed male in odor identification.…”

Section: Demographic Characteristics and Measures Used In Odor Identimentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effect of gender on odor identification at different life stages: a meta-analysis

Wang¹,

Zhang²,

Xia³

et al. 2019

Rhin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Although conflicting findings abound, gender-related differences in olfactory identification have received continuous attention. To our best knowledge, no systematic and quantitative research has examined gender differences in olfaction identification at various stages of life. The present study aimed to find out if there is gender difference in human olfaction identification in different life stages. Methodology: Studies cited in the PubMed database were searched from its inception to August 2017 using the terms "olfact*" or "smell" and "gender" or "sex". The effect size of each comparison was calculated. 24 studies were included in this meta-analysis. Results: In this meta-analysis, we used Cohen's d to determine the effects sizes for the comparisons between women versus men among different groups. Its value was 0.18 (95% CI:-0.13 to 0.49) in Group A (age<18years), 0.62 (95% CI: 0.43 to 0.81) in Group B (age 18-50years), and 0.33 (95% CI:-0.01 to 0.66) in Group C. The effect was considered relatively small in Group A (age<18years) and Group C (age>50years), and a medium effect in Group B (age18-50 years). Moreover, a significant difference was only present in Group B (age18-50 years). Summarizing, the gender effect was only present in the group aged 18-50 years, in which women outperformed men significantly in odor identification. Conclusions: This meta-analytic review indicated that the gender differences only exist in young adults (age18-50 years), while absent in juveniles (age<18years) or an aged cohort (age >50years). Females outperformed males in the young adults.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Demographic Characteristics and Measures Used In Odor Identimentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of gender on odor identification at different life stages: a meta-analysis

Wang¹,

Zhang²,

Xia³

et al. 2019

Rhin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Threshold. The odor threshold subtest contains 16 triplets (numbered [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16], in which only one of the triplets contains nbutanol and solvent and the other two contain only the solvent. The subjects were asked to identify the pen with n-butanol in different concentrations.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The validity of the I tests has been examined both in terms of internal validity 10,[12][13][14] and external validity [13][14][15][16][17][18] in other languages and cultures. Different cultural components have major impact on the exposure and frequency of foods and odors, and consequently on our familiarity with odors.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Danish validation of sniffin' sticks olfactory test for threshold, discrimination, and identification

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several diagnostic tools have been developed to assess human sensitivity to odors and to diagnose olfactory dysfunctions (Doty, Avron, Lee, Marcus, & William Lee, ; Hummel, Sekinger, Wolf, Pauli, & Kobal, ). Attempts have been made to advance these methods by extension (Sorokowska, Albrecht, Haehner, & Hummel, ), reduction (Hummel, Pfetzing, & Lötsch, ), or cultural adaptation (Catana, Negoiaș, Maniu, Porojan, & Cosgarea, ; Konstantinidis et al, ; Oleszkiewicz et al, ; Silveira‐Moriyama et al, ; Sorokowska & Hummel, ) to provide most accurate diagnosis of olfactory function. Recently, chemical properties of odors utilized in the Sniffin’ Sticks test battery gained scientific attention and prompted efforts to test the hypothesis stating that more complex stimuli, that is, mixtures of odorants are more efficient in activating ORs and thus less sensitive to individual variability in ORs phenotype.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Molecularly diverse odors advance olfactory threshold testing

Oleszkiewicz

Würfel

Han

et al. 2018

Journal of Sensory Studies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multiple‐compound mixtures of odorants are likely to produce significantly more reliable and favorable results of olfactory sensitivity testing. Within the current study, we aimed to investigate this hypothesis and determine the optimal number of odor compounds within a testing stimulus. One‐hundred individuals volunteered to participate in the study procedure wherein their olfactory threshold was measured with stimuli varying in the number of compounds during two sessions. We found that molecularly varied stimuli made olfactory threshold assessments relatively independent from an individual variability in sensitivity to specific odorants. Nevertheless, this was only true in certain conditions—depending on the number of components and quality of the odorants. On this basis, we outline future directions for studies aimed to advance assessments of the olfactory threshold by discussing the relationships between the chemical and physical properties of odorants and results of the threshold assessment they produce. Practical applications This study provides empirical evidence that olfactory threshold testing becomes more favorable and reliable when an odor stimulus contains ~10 types of molecules. This is assumed due to an efficient activation of olfactory receptors. These findings advance the current state of knowledge in the field of biology by presenting behavioral responses to the augmented potential for binding molecules through olfactory receptors. Results presented in this manuscript constitute a significant improvement in the methods of olfactory function assessments and should be of interest to both scientific and clinical audience in the fields of neuroscience, chemosensory research, chemistry, and biology. These results are likely to translate to a more accurate assessment of olfactory abilities in commercial settings, that is, perfumes, or wine experts.

show abstract

Development of the Arabic version of the “Sniffin’ Sticks” odor identification test

Abstract: 2b.

Cited by 36 publications

References 19 publications

Effect of gender on odor identification at different life stages: a meta-analysis

Effect of gender on odor identification at different life stages: a meta-analysis

Danish validation of sniffin' sticks olfactory test for threshold, discrimination, and identification

Molecularly diverse odors advance olfactory threshold testing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About