Gaurav S Ajmani1, Helen H Suh2, Kristen E Wroblewski3, Jayant M Pinto4. 1. Pritzker School of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A. 2. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts, U.S.A. 3. Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A. 4. Section of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature was undertaken, examining the association between tobacco smoking and olfactory function in humans, utilizing PubMed and Web of Science (1970-2015) as data sources. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic literature review and meta-analysis. METHODS: This database review of studies of smoking and olfaction, with a focus on identifying high-quality studies (based on modified versions of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale), used validated olfactory tests among the generally healthy population. RESULTS: We identified 11 studies meeting inclusion criteria. Of 10 cross-sectional studies, two were excluded from meta-analysis because the cohorts they studied were included in another article in the review. In meta-analysis, current smokers had substantially higher odds of olfactory dysfunction compared to never smokers (odds ratio [OR] = 1.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.37-1.85). In contrast, former smokers were found to have no difference in risk of impaired olfaction compared to never smokers (OR = 1.05, 95% CI = 0.91-1.21). The single longitudinal study reviewed found a trend toward increased risk of olfactory decline over time in ever smokers; this trend was stronger in current as compared to former smokers. CONCLUSIONS: Current smoking, but not former smoking, is associated with significantly increased risk of olfactory dysfunction, suggesting that the effects of smoking on olfaction may be reversible. Future studies that prospectively evaluate the impact of smoking cessation on improvement in olfactory function are warranted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A. Laryngoscope, 127:1753-1761, 2017.
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature was undertaken, examining the association between tobacco smoking and olfactory function in humans, utilizing PubMed and Web of Science (1970-2015) as data sources. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic literature review and meta-analysis. METHODS: This database review of studies of smoking and olfaction, with a focus on identifying high-quality studies (based on modified versions of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale), used validated olfactory tests among the generally healthy population. RESULTS: We identified 11 studies meeting inclusion criteria. Of 10 cross-sectional studies, two were excluded from meta-analysis because the cohorts they studied were included in another article in the review. In meta-analysis, current smokers had substantially higher odds of olfactory dysfunction compared to never smokers (odds ratio [OR] = 1.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.37-1.85). In contrast, former smokers were found to have no difference in risk of impaired olfaction compared to never smokers (OR = 1.05, 95% CI = 0.91-1.21). The single longitudinal study reviewed found a trend toward increased risk of olfactory decline over time in ever smokers; this trend was stronger in current as compared to former smokers. CONCLUSIONS: Current smoking, but not former smoking, is associated with significantly increased risk of olfactory dysfunction, suggesting that the effects of smoking on olfaction may be reversible. Future studies that prospectively evaluate the impact of smoking cessation on improvement in olfactory function are warranted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A. Laryngoscope, 127:1753-1761, 2017.
Authors: Claire Murphy; Carla R Schubert; Karen J Cruickshanks; Barbara E K Klein; Ronald Klein; David M Nondahl Journal: JAMA Date: 2002-11-13 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jesse K Siegel; Kristen E Wroblewski; Martha K McClintock; Jayant M Pinto Journal: Int Forum Allergy Rhinol Date: 2019-07-31 Impact factor: 3.858
Authors: Sarah-Grace Glennon; Tania Huedo-Medina; Shristi Rawal; Howard J Hoffman; Mark D Litt; Valerie B Duffy Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2019-05-21 Impact factor: 4.244