OBJECTIVE: To see if nasal peak inspiratory flow rate and subjective sense of smell had any correlation with olfactory thresholds. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A cohort study of 186 normal volunteers was recruited from among staff and visitors at a university hospital. Olfactory thresholds were detected for each subject (103 with eucalyptol and 83 with phenethyl alcohol), along with nasal peak inspiratory flow (PIFR). Subjective sense of smell, along with nasal symptoms, mood, and alertness, were recorded on visual analogue scores. RESULTS: Subjective perception of smell had no correlation with olfactory thresholds detected (P = 0.4057) and the other subjective measures also had no correlation. There was a significant relationship of PIFR to thresholds in the group tested with phenethyl alcohol (P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: As with the sensation of nasal patency, the self-assessment of a subject's sense of smell has poor correlation with their actual olfactory ability. SIGNIFICANCE: A patient's history cannot be relied upon when determining their olfactory ability and formal testing should be performed. EBM RATING: A-1b.
OBJECTIVE: To see if nasal peak inspiratory flow rate and subjective sense of smell had any correlation with olfactory thresholds. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A cohort study of 186 normal volunteers was recruited from among staff and visitors at a university hospital. Olfactory thresholds were detected for each subject (103 with eucalyptol and 83 with phenethyl alcohol), along with nasal peak inspiratory flow (PIFR). Subjective sense of smell, along with nasal symptoms, mood, and alertness, were recorded on visual analogue scores. RESULTS: Subjective perception of smell had no correlation with olfactory thresholds detected (P = 0.4057) and the other subjective measures also had no correlation. There was a significant relationship of PIFR to thresholds in the group tested with phenethyl alcohol (P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: As with the sensation of nasal patency, the self-assessment of a subject's sense of smell has poor correlation with their actual olfactory ability. SIGNIFICANCE: A patient's history cannot be relied upon when determining their olfactory ability and formal testing should be performed. EBM RATING: A-1b.
Authors: Onder Göktas; Helene Cao Van; Franca Fleiner; Jean-Silvain Lacroix; Basile Nicolas Landis Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2009-12-31 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Matt Lechner; Jacklyn Liu; Nicholas Counsell; Ngan Hong Ta; John Rocke; Rajesh Anmolsingh; Nicholas Eynon-Lewis; Santdeep Paun; Claire Hopkins; Sadie Khwaja; B Nirmal Kumar; Samuel Jayaraj; Valerie J Lund; Carl Philpott Journal: Clin Otolaryngol Date: 2020-12-21 Impact factor: 2.597
Authors: A Fjaeldstad; H M Fernandes; T J Van Hartevelt; C Gleesborg; A Møller; T Ovesen; M L Kringelbach Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2017-02-14 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Diego Bagnasco; Giovanni Passalacqua; Fulvio Braido; Elena Tagliabue; Filippo Cosini; Marta Filauro; Alessandro Ioppi; Andrea Carobbio; Davide Mocellin; Anna Maria Riccio; Frank Rikki Canevari Journal: World Allergy Organ J Date: 2021-01-20 Impact factor: 4.084
Authors: Teodor Świdziński; Kamila Linkowska-Świdzińska; Hanna Czerniejewska-Wolska; Bożena Wiskirska-Woźnica; Maciej Owecki; Maria Danuta Głowacka; Anna Frankowska; Katarzyna Łącka; Mariusz Glapiński; Zofia Maciejewska-Szaniec; Piotr Świdziński Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2016-08-30 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Stefan Kleinbeck; Michael Schäper; Marlene Pacharra; Marie Louise Lehmann; Klaus Golka; Meinolf Blaszkewicz; Thomas Brüning; Christoph van Thriel Journal: Arch Toxicol Date: 2020-03-17 Impact factor: 5.153