| Title |
Olfactory cleft evaluation: a predictor for olfactory function in smell-impaired patients?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00405-018-4913-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sophia C. Poletti, Gustavo Murta, Antje Hähner, Thomas Hummel |
| Abstract |
In this study, we introduce an extension of previous work by Soler et al. (Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 6(3):293-298, 2016) on a modified endoscopic scoring system of the Lund-Kennedy Score (focusing on the olfactory cleft) to evaluate its correlation with the olfactory function in patients with various smell disorders. A prospective cohort study. Two-hundred and eighty-eight participants were included and categorized in five groups according to the cause of their olfactory disorder: (0) control, (1) idiopathic, (2) sino-nasal, (3) postinfectious and (4) post traumatic olfactory loss. Olfaction was evaluated using the "Sniffin' Sticks" test. The classical Lund-Kennedy scoring and a new olfactory cleft specific Lund-Kennedy scoring (OC-LK) were performed to evaluate mucosal changes. Significantly higher OC-LK scores on both sides were found in smell-impaired patients as compared to normosmic controls. When comparing the 4 groups, a significant difference of the OC-LK score were present between the sino-nasal and all other groups. Most importantly, significant negative correlations with strong effects were shown in the sino-nasal group between the OC-LK score and odor discrimination and odor identification. However, no such correlation emerged between the classical LK score and smell function. Olfactory cleft evaluation using the OC-LK score correlates with the olfactory function in patients with sino-nasal smell disorder. This diagnostic tool may reflect the underlying pathophysiological mechanism of sino-nasal smell loss, and therefore, should complement olfactory diagnostics in patients with sino-nasal smell disorder. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 27 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 4 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 7% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 22% |
| Unknown | 9 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 41% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 13 | 48% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 March 2018.
All research outputs
#18,589,103
of 23,025,074 outputs
Outputs from European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology
#1,668
of 3,113 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#256,663
of 330,058 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology
#20
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,025,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,113 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,058 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.