4.5 Article

Taste and Smell Impairment in COVID-19: An AAO-HNS Anosmia Reporting Tool-Based Comparative Study

期刊

OTOLARYNGOLOGY-HEAD AND NECK SURGERY
卷 163, 期 3, 页码 473-479

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0194599820931820

关键词

COVID-19; coronavirus; chemosensory; anosmia; dysgeusia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To identify the taste and smell impairment in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-positive subjects and compare the findings with COVID-19-negative subjects using the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (AAO-HNS) Anosmia Reporting Tool. Setting Tertiary referral center/COVID-19 pandemic hospital. Study Design Comparative study. Subjects and Methods After power analysis, 128 subjects were divided into 2 groups according to real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) COVID-19 testing results. Subjects were called via telephone, and the AAO-HNS Anosmia Reporting Tool was used to collect responses. Results The mean age of the study group was 38.63 +/- 10.08 years. At the time of sampling, rhinorrhea was significantly high in the COVID-19-negative group, whereas those complaints described as other were significantly high in the COVID-19-positive group. There was a significant difference in the smell/taste impairment rates of the groups (n = 46% [71.9%] for the COVID-19-positive group vs n = 17 [26.6%] for the COVID-19-negative group,P= .001). For subjects with a smell impairment, anosmia rates did not differ between the groups. The rates of hyposmia and parosmia were significantly high in the COVID-19-positive group. For the subjects with taste impairment, ageusia rates did not differ between groups. The rate of hypogeusia and dysgeusia was significantly high in the COVID-19-positive group. Logistic regression analysis indicates that smell/taste impairment in COVID-19-positive subjects increases the odds ratio by 6.956 (95% CI, 3.16-15.29) times. Conclusion COVID-19-positive subjects are strongly associated with smell/taste impairment.

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