4.3 Article

Olfactory dysfunction and extent of white matter abnormalities in multiple sclerosis: a clinical and MR study

期刊

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS JOURNAL
卷 6, 期 6, 页码 386-390

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/135245850000600605

关键词

olfactory dysfunction; multiple sclerosis; magnetic resonance imaging

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The relative contribution to the olfactory dysfunction of the lesions in the specific brain regions involved in olfaction compared with the lesions scattered all over the rest of the brain has not been fully clarified yet in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). The concurrent use of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and a standardized test of odor identification ability now permits to study the relation between smell loss and the extent of white matter abnormalities. Methods: We tested the olfactory function of 40 patients with definite MS and of 40 age-sex- and smoking-habit-matched healthy controls by using the Cross Cultural Smell identification Test We measured also the lesion load on T-2-weighted images in the inferior-frontal and temporal lobes and in the rest of the brain in MS patients. Therefore, we tried to correlate measures of lesion load and smell test scores. Results: A robust correlation was demonstrated between MR measures of lesion load in the white matter of the olfactory brain region and smell loss (r=-0.739, P<0.0001). A significant relationship has been found even after taking potential confounding factors such as sex, age, disease duration, disability anxiety and depression, into account (r=-0.90, P<0.0001). Conclusions: Our findings show, in MS patients with stable neurological impairment and no recent disease exacerbation, a correlation between smell loss and the lesion load in the regions of the brain involved in olfaction and support the theory that the extent and severity of MRI abnormalities in specific brain regions ore related to the presence of selective neurologic and neuropsychologic 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

4.3
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