4.7 Article

Predictors of prognosis in patients with olfactory disturbance

期刊

ANNALS OF NEUROLOGY
卷 63, 期 2, 页码 159-166

出版社

WILEY-LISS
DOI: 10.1002/ana.21293

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIA NIH HHS [R01 AG17496] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDCD NIH HHS [R01 DC 02974, P01 DC00161, R01 DC04278] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Although olfaction is often compromised by such Factors as head trauma, viruses, and toxic agents, the olfactory epithelium and sectors of the olfactory bulb have the potential for regeneration. This study assessed the degree to which olfactory function changes over time in patients presenting to a university-based smell and taste center with complaints of olfactory dysfunction and the influences of etiology (eg, head trauma, upper respiratory infection), sex, age, smoking behavior, degree of initial dysfunction, and other factors on Such change. Methods: Well-validated odor identification tests were administered to 542 patients on 2 occasions separated from one another by 3 months to 24 years. Multivariable regression and chi(2) analyses assessed the influences of the variables on the longitudinal changes in olfactory test scores. Results: On average, smell test scores improved modestly over time. Patient age, severity of initial olfactory loss, and the duration of dysfunction at first testing were significant predictors of the amount of the change. Etiology, sex, time between the two test administrations, and initial smoking behavior were not significant predictors. The percentage of anosmic and microsmic patients exhibiting statistically significant change in function was 56.72 and 42.86%, respectively. However, only 11.31% of anosmic and 23.31% of microsmic patients regained normal age-related function over time. Interpretation: Some recovery can be expected in a significant number of patients who experience smell loss. The amount of recovery depends on the degree of initial loss, age, and the duration of loss. Etiology, per se, is not a significant determinant of prognosis, in contrast with what is commonly believed.

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

4.7
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