4.4 Article

Odors identification differences in deficit and nondeficit schizophrenia

Journal

PHARMACOLOGICAL REPORTS
Volume 68, Issue 2, Pages 390-395

Publisher

POLISH ACAD SCIENCES INST PHARMACOLOGY
DOI: 10.1016/j.pharep.2015.11.001

Keywords

Schizophrenia; Deficit schizophrenia; Odors identification; Sniffin' Sticks; Olfaction

Funding

  1. Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education [NN 402456738]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: There is evidence that deficit schizophrenia (DS) is associated with neuroanatomical changes in structures including those involved in olfaction. Olfactory dysfunction, which includes impaired odor identification, is found in patients with schizophrenia and their family members. Methods: 82 patients with DS and 72 patients with NDS (nondeficit schizophrenia), somatically healthy and without acute psychotic symptoms undertook a smell identification test using the 16-item Sniffin' Sticks ID test. Demographic and psychometric data were collected. Results: No differences in the course of the illness, perinatal history and demographic data were found between the DS and NDS groups. No differences in the number of correctly identified odor samples were found. Some differences in the qualitative identification of samples between DS and NDS were found in the groups of female (fewer correct identifications of cinnamon and pineapple smells in DS) and male patients (fewer correct identifications of the smell of rose and more correct identifications of the smell of orange than in NDS). Conclusions: No overall differences between DS and NDS regarding odors identification have been found. The results seem to indicate some specific deficits in the identification of markers of rose, pineapple, orange and cinnamon. (C) 2015 Institute of Pharmacology, Polish Academy of Sciences. Published by Elsevier Sp. z.o.o. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available