4.5 Review

Olfactory function in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease: A meta-analysis

期刊

LARYNGOSCOPE
卷 129, 期 2, 页码 362-369

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/lary.27399

关键词

Mild cognitive impairment; dementia; Alzheimer's disease; olfaction; meta-analysis

资金

  1. Clinical Medicine Research Institute of the Chosun University Hospital

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective Olfactory function is altered in mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's disease (AD); therefore, it may serve as a useful tool for the early detection of MCI before its advancement to AD. The aim of this meta-analysis was to investigate olfactory deficits in patients with MCI and AD. Study Design Literature search. Methods A search was conducted of the electronic databases PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science from their inception until 2017. We included original articles with adequate data on the identification, threshold, and/or discrimination of olfactory function in MCI or AD. The standard mean difference and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. The studies were weighted according to inverse variance estimates. The effect sizes were categorized as small [Cohen's d = 0.2], medium (d = 0.5), or large (d >= 0.8) based on these methods. Subgroup analyses were performed based on mean age and sex differences between the groups. Results Twelve articles (reporting 21 effects) examining 563 patients with MCI and 788 patients with AD, were included in the meta-analysis. Compared to MCI, AD had moderate to large heterogeneous effects on olfactory function (Cohen's d = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.50, 0.78). Olfactory identification tests demonstrated larger effects (d = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.51, 0.91) than did tests of other olfactory domains. Conclusions Meta-analysis results revealed that olfactory identification was more profoundly impaired in patients with AD than in those with MCI. These findings suggest that a simple test of odor identification is valuable in differentiating individuals at a risk of AD.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据