David R Roalf1, Madelyn J Moberg1, Bruce I Turetsky1, Laura Brennan2, Sushila Kabadi1, David A Wolk3, Paul J Moberg1,3. 1. Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 2. Department of Neurology, Drexel University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 3. Department of Neurology, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The connection between Alzheimer's disease (AD) and olfactory deficits is well documented and further, alterations in olfactory functioning may signal declines in functions associated with dementia. The aim of the present comprehensive meta-analysis was to investigate the nature of olfactory deficits in mild cognitive impairment (MCI). METHODS: Articles were identified through computerised literature search from inception to 30 June 2016 using PubMed, MEDLINE and PsychInfo databases. In order to control for differences in sample size during effect size computation, studies were weighted according to their inverse variance estimates. RESULTS: 31 articles (62 effects) were identified, which included 1993 MCI patients and 2861 healthy older adults (HOA). Included studies contrasted odour identification, discrimination, detection threshold and/or memory between cases and controls. Moderate to large and heterogeneous effects were seen for olfactory deficits in MCI relative to HOA (d=-0.76, 95% CI -0.87<δ<-0.64). Moderator analysis revealed that tests of odour identification yielded larger effect sizes than those of odour detection threshold or memory. In addition, a potential interaction between age and sex was observed, with male patients carrying a larger burden of olfactory deficit and older female patients performing better on olfactory tests. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Olfactory deficits are present and robust in MCI. Odour identification is most impaired in MCI, which parallels the most prominent sensory deficit seen in AD. As such, a simple-to-administer test of odour identification warrants inclusion in the screening of individuals at risk for developing AD. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
BACKGROUND: The connection between Alzheimer's disease (AD) and olfactory deficits is well documented and further, alterations in olfactory functioning may signal declines in functions associated with dementia. The aim of the present comprehensive meta-analysis was to investigate the nature of olfactory deficits in mild cognitive impairment (MCI). METHODS: Articles were identified through computerised literature search from inception to 30 June 2016 using PubMed, MEDLINE and PsychInfo databases. In order to control for differences in sample size during effect size computation, studies were weighted according to their inverse variance estimates. RESULTS: 31 articles (62 effects) were identified, which included 1993 MCI patients and 2861 healthy older adults (HOA). Included studies contrasted odour identification, discrimination, detection threshold and/or memory between cases and controls. Moderate to large and heterogeneous effects were seen for olfactory deficits in MCI relative to HOA (d=-0.76, 95% CI -0.87<δ<-0.64). Moderator analysis revealed that tests of odour identification yielded larger effect sizes than those of odour detection threshold or memory. In addition, a potential interaction between age and sex was observed, with male patients carrying a larger burden of olfactory deficit and older female patients performing better on olfactory tests. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Olfactory deficits are present and robust in MCI. Odour identification is most impaired in MCI, which parallels the most prominent sensory deficit seen in AD. As such, a simple-to-administer test of odour identification warrants inclusion in the screening of individuals at risk for developing AD. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
Authors: D P Devanand; G Pradhaban; X Liu; A Khandji; S De Santi; S Segal; H Rusinek; G H Pelton; L S Honig; R Mayeux; Y Stern; M H Tabert; M J de Leon Journal: Neurology Date: 2007-03-13 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: D P Devanand; K S Michaels-Marston; X Liu; G H Pelton; M Padilla; K Marder; K Bell; Y Stern; R Mayeux Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2000-09 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: G Kobal; L Klimek; M Wolfensberger; H Gudziol; A Temmel; C M Owen; H Seeber; E Pauli; T Hummel Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2000 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Kayci L Vickers; Kathleen Breslin; David R Roalf; Vidyulata Kamath; Sharon X Xie; Paul J Moberg; David A Wolk; Dawn Mechanic-Hamilton Journal: Arch Clin Neuropsychol Date: 2019-03-01 Impact factor: 2.813
Authors: Maryam Yahiaoui-Doktor; Tobias Luck; Steffi G Riedel-Heller; Markus Loeffler; Kerstin Wirkner; Christoph Engel Journal: Alzheimers Res Ther Date: 2019-05-10 Impact factor: 6.982
Authors: Abhinaba Ghosh; Sarah E Torraville; Bandhan Mukherjee; Susan G Walling; Gerard M Martin; Carolyn W Harley; Qi Yuan Journal: Alzheimers Res Ther Date: 2019-07-03 Impact factor: 6.982
Authors: Xiuli Dan; Noah Wechter; Samuel Gray; Joy G Mohanty; Deborah L Croteau; Vilhelm A Bohr Journal: Ageing Res Rev Date: 2021-07-27 Impact factor: 11.788