| Title |
Efficacy of olfactory training in patients with olfactory loss: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1002/alr.21669 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kelly Pekala, Rakesh K Chandra, Justin H Turner |
| Abstract |
Olfactory loss is a challenging clinical problem with few proven therapeutic options. Early experimental results with olfactory training suggest that this novel therapy may be an effective intervention for olfactory dysfunction of multiple etiologies. The aim of this study was to systematically review currently available studies that assess the efficacy and outcomes of olfactory training in patients with olfactory loss. A comprehensive systematic literature review was performed with the assistance of a reference librarian using the PubMed, PsycInfo, Google Scholar, EMBASE, and Proquest databases. Eligible studies were extracted based on defined inclusion criteria and the effect of olfactory training on objective olfactory function was evaluated qualitatively and by meta-analysis. A total of 10 studies with 639 patients were identified and systematically reviewed. Sufficient data for meta-analysis was available for 3 studies. Patients receiving olfactory training experienced a statistically significant improvement in the Threshold, Discrimination, Identification (TDI) score compared to control patients (mean difference [MD] 3.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.28 to 5.26). Improvement in olfactory function was observed in discrimination (MD 1.92; 95% CI, 1.13 to 2.71) and identification (MD 1.61; 95% CI, 0.55 to 2.68), but not in olfactory thresholds (MD -0.01; 95% CI, -0.42 to 0.39). Olfactory training is a promising modality for the treatment of olfactory dysfunction. Results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that it may be an effective treatment for olfactory dysfunction due to multiple etiologies. Additional high-quality studies are needed to define indications, outcomes, and duration of therapy for this novel therapy. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 178 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Saudi Arabia | 53 | 30% |
| Japan | 5 | 3% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 2% |
| United States | 2 | 1% |
| Estonia | 2 | 1% |
| Oman | 1 | <1% |
| Palestine, State of | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Bosnia and Herzegovina | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 5 | 3% |
| Unknown | 103 | 58% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 166 | 93% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 7 | 4% |
| Scientists | 5 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 186 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 185 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 25 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 19 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 9% |
| Researcher | 15 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 13 | 7% |
| Other | 36 | 19% |
| Unknown | 61 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 54 | 29% |
| Neuroscience | 12 | 6% |
| Psychology | 10 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 3% |
| Other | 22 | 12% |
| Unknown | 75 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 385. 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 27 January 2024.
All research outputs
#81,706
of 25,768,270 outputs
Outputs from International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology
#7
of 1,913 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,134
of 397,665 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology
#1
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,768,270 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,913 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
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 397,665 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.