Literature DB >> 20213794

Correlates of chemosensory malingering.

Richard L Doty1, Benjamin Crastnopol.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Smell and taste tests are commonly employed to quantify chemosensory sequelae of head trauma, toxic exposures, and iatrogenesis. Malingering on forced-choice chemosensory tests can be detected by improbable responding. This study determined whether chemosensory test malingerers differ from nonmalingerers in terms of age, sex, education, and a range of self-reported behaviors and symptoms, potentially providing information of value for malingering detection. STUDY
DESIGN: Case control.
METHODS: Twenty-two chemosensory malingerers were identified from a large clinical database and matched, randomly, to 66 nonmalingerers on the basis of etiology. Differences in demographics and responses to intake questionnaire items were statistically assessed. Logistic regression was used to identify variables that best predicted malingering behavior.
RESULTS: Relative to nonmalingerers, malingerers reported significantly fewer allergies, dental problems, cigarettes smoked, surgical operations, nasal sinus problems, and use of medications, and significantly more putative symptom-related psychological duress, interference with daily activities, weight loss, decreased appetite, and taste loss. Litigation involvement was higher in malingerers than nonmalingerers. Age, sex, education, and length of symptom descriptions did not differentiate malingerers from nonmalingerers.
CONCLUSIONS: Malingerers of chemosensory tests exaggerate symptom severity and underreport factors that might be construed as contributing to their dysfunction, such as smoking behavior, medication use, and general health. This contrasts with the behavior of malingerers of psychiatric symptoms, who typically exaggerate their general health problems. These data suggest that careful review of past medical records should be used to verify patient reports to better detect chemosensory malingering in cases where financial or other external incentives are present.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20213794     DOI: 10.1002/lary.20827

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Laryngoscope        ISSN: 0023-852X            Impact factor:   3.325


  5 in total

1.  Optimizing olfactory testing for the diagnosis of Parkinson's disease: item analysis of the university of Pennsylvania smell identification test.

Authors:  James F Morley; Abigail Cohen; Laura Silveira-Moriyama; Andrew J Lees; David R Williams; Regina Katzenschlager; Christopher Hawkes; Julie P Shtraks; Daniel Weintraub; Richard L Doty; John E Duda
Journal:  NPJ Parkinsons Dis       Date:  2018-01-15

Review 2.  Olfactory dysfunction and its measurement in the clinic.

Authors:  Richard L Doty
Journal:  World J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2015-10-26

3.  Odor Mixtures in Identification Testing Using Sniffin' Sticks: The SSomix Test.

Authors:  David Tianxiang Liu; Gerold Besser; Miriam Lang; Gunjan Sharma; Eleonore Pablik; Bertold Renner; Christian Albert Mueller
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-05-18       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 4.  Head trauma and olfactory function.

Authors:  Jessica Howell; Richard M Costanzo; Evan R Reiter
Journal:  World J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2018-03-14

5.  Measurement of chemosensory function.

Authors:  Richard L Doty
Journal:  World J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2018-06-28
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.