4.5 Article

A New Method for Assessment of Retronasal Olfactory Function

Journal

LARYNGOSCOPE
Volume 131, Issue 2, Pages E324-E330

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/lary.28698

Keywords

Olfaction disorders; retronasal olfaction; retronasal identification test; smell

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study developed a test for assessing retronasal olfaction in healthy individuals and patients with olfactory disorders using tasteless powders. Results showed high correlation between retronasal and orthonasal olfaction, with 16 stimuli effectively differentiating patients from controls.
Objectives/Hypothesis The aim of the study was to develop a test for the assessment of retronasal olfaction in healthy participants and patients with olfactory disorders using tasteless powders. Study Design: Prospective case-control series. Methods A total of 150 participants (110 women, 40 men, mean age = 40 +/- 16 years) were recruited for this study; 100 were healthy controls and 50 were patients with olfactory loss due to infections of the upper respiratory tract (n = 25), idiopathic causes (n = 12), sinonasal disease (n = 7), and head trauma (n = 6). Orthonasal olfactory function was evaluated using the Sniffin' Sticks test battery, and retronasal olfaction was evaluated using powders lacking distinctive tastes administered to the oral cavity. To establish test-retest reliability, healthy participants had their orthonasal and retronasal function tested twice. Results The validity analyses revealed that the selected 16 stimuli differentiated between normosmic participants and patients with olfactory loss, and that retronasal and orthonasal olfaction were highly correlated. Conclusions The results of the present study indicate that patients with olfactory loss and controls can be clearly separated using a reliable test of retronasal olfaction based on 16 retronasal stimuli. Level of Evidence 2b Laryngoscope, 2020

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available