4.5 Article

The Association Between Diabetes and Olfactory Function in Adults

期刊

CHEMICAL SENSES
卷 43, 期 1, 页码 59-64

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/chemse/bjx070

关键词

diabetes; hyposmia; phantosmia; olfactory dysfunction

资金

  1. Dr Stanley Ho Medical Foundation [6904215]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Diabetes is a significant chronic disease that in limited studies has been linked with olfactory dysfunction. We investigated the cross-sectional association between diabetes and olfactory dysfunction in 3151 adults aged >= 40 years who participated in US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2013-2014 with information on olfactory dysfunction and diabetes. Diabetes was defined from fasting serum glucose >= 126 mg/dL, oral glucose tolerance test >= 200 mg/dL, HbA1c levels >= 6.5%, physician-diagnosed diabetes, or current use of oral hypoglycemic agents and/or insulin. Self-reported olfactory dysfunction was defined as a positive answer to any of the following questions: 1) Have you had problem with smell in the past 12 months?; 2) Have you had a change in the ability to smell since age 25?, or 3) Do you have phantom smells?. Participants were considered to have severe hyposmia or anosmia if they had < 5 correct answers in the 8-item pocket smell test. Analyses were adjusted for the main confounders, including olfactory dysfunction risk factors. Compared to non-diabetics, diabetics under insulin treatment showed a higher prevalence of phantom odors [OR(95% CI): 2.42 (1.16; 5.06)] and a non-significant higher prevalence of severe hyposmia/anosmia [OR(95% CI): 1.57 (0.89; 2.78)]. Amongst diabetics, there was a significant trend to severe hyposmia/anosmia for those on more aggressive treatments [OR (95% CI) including oral and insulin treatment compared to those who reported no use of drug treatment, respectively: 1.33 (0.60; 2.96) and 2.86 (1.28; 6.40); P trend 0.01]. No association was observed between diabetes duration and prevalence of olfactory dysfunction.

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