4.5 Article

Olfactory Impairment in an Adult Population: The Beaver Dam Offspring Study

Journal

CHEMICAL SENSES
Volume 37, Issue 4, Pages 325-334

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/chemse/bjr102

Keywords

epidemiology; olfaction; quality of life; smell disorders

Funding

  1. National Institute on Aging [R01AG021917]
  2. National Eye Institute
  3. National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of olfactory impairment and associated risk factors and the effects of olfactory impairment on dietary choices and quality of life. Odor identification was measured in 2838 participants aged 21-84 years (mean 49 years) in the Beaver Dam Offspring Study. The overall prevalence of olfactory impairment was 3.8%, increased with age (from 0.6% in those < 35 years to 13.9% among those >= 65 years) and was more common in men than women. In a multivariate model age (odds ratio [OR] = 1.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.33, 1.64 for every 5-year increase), nasal polyps or deviated septum (OR = 2.69, 95% CI = 1.62, 4.48), ankle-brachial index < 0.9 (OR = 3.62, 95% CI = 1.45, 9.01), and smoking (women only) (OR = 2.43, 95% CI = 1.19, 4.98 ever smoked vs. never) were associated with an increased odds of olfactory impairment, whereas higher household income, >=$50 000 versus <$50 000 per year, was associated with a decreased odds of olfactory impairment (OR = 0.48, 95% CI = 0.31, 0.73). Participants with olfactory impairment were less likely to report that food tasted as good as it used to, or that they experienced food flavors the same. There was no association between olfactory impairment and general health-related quality of life, depressive symptoms, or dietary choices. The prevalence of olfactory impairment was low in this largely middle-aged cohort, and some factors associated with olfactory impairment are potentially modifiable.

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