| Literature DB >> 29371903 |
Allessandra Fraga Da Ré1, Léia Gonçalves Gurgel1, Gabriela Buffon1, Weluma Evelyn Rodrigues Moura1, Deisi Cristina Gollo Marques Vidor2, Márcia Angelica Peter Maahs1.
Abstract
Introduction In Brazil, estimates show that 14.7% of the adult population smokes, and changes in smell and taste arising from tobacco consumption are largely present in this population, which is an aggravating factor to these dysfunctions. Objectives The objective of this study is to systematically review the findings in the literature about the influence of smoking on smell and taste. Data Synthesis Our research covered articles published from January 1980 to August 2014 in the following databases: MEDLINE (accessed through PubMed), LILACS, Cochrane Library, and SciELO. We conducted separate lines of research: one concerning smell and the other, taste. We analyzed all the articles that presented randomized controlled studies involving the relation between smoking and smell and taste. Articles that presented unclear methodologies and those whose main results did not target the smell or taste of the subjects were excluded. Titles and abstracts of the articles identified by the research strategy were evaluated by researchers. We included four studies, two of which were exclusively about smell: the first noted the relation between the perception of puff strength and nicotine content; the second did not find any differences in the thresholds and discriminative capacity between smokers and nonsmokers. One article considered only taste and supports the relation between smoking and flavor, another considered both sensory modalities and observes positive results toward the relation immediately after smoking cessation. Conclusion Three of the four studies presented positive results for the researched variables.Entities:
Keywords: olfaction; olfaction disorders; smell; smoking; taste disorders
Year: 2017 PMID: 29371903 PMCID: PMC5783692 DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1597921
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol ISSN: 1809-4864
Fig. 1Diagram of the selection process of articles.
Characteristics of the studies included
| Author | Original language | Journal | n | Gender of the sample | Outcomes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Rose
| English |
| 15 smokers | Men and women. | Found no differences in nicotine discrimination between the smoking group with sealed nose and those without sealing. |
|
Thuerauf et al
| English | Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology | 30 volunteers | 100% Men | Found no differences in thresholds and discriminative capacity between smokers and nonsmokers, indicating that the peripheral olfactory and trigeminal neurons binding sites are not affected by smoking history. |
|
Mullings et al
| English | J. Psychopharmacol | 48 daily cigarette smokers | 50% men and | Higher pleasantness ratings given by non-abstinent smokers to sucrose compared the salt solutions, whereas for abstinent smokers there was no difference. Significant effect of the type of cigarette in women, causing a decrease in taste threshold. |
|
Etter et al
| English | Addiction | 581 daily smokers | NR | Improvements after cessation of the sense of smell, taste, and sore throat. |
Abbreviations: IF, impact factor; n, sample size; NR, not reported.
Analysis of outcomes
| Outcome measure | Number of Studies | Limitations | Inconsistency | Subjectivity | Imprecision | Quality of Evidence | Author |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Taste improvements | 2 | moderate | low | low | moderate | moderate |
Etter et al
|
| moderate | low | low | low | moderate |
Mullings et al
| ||
| Smell Improvements | 3 | moderate | low | low | moderate | moderate |
Etter et al
|
| moderate | low | low | low | moderate |
Thuerauf et al
| ||
| low | low | low | moderate | moderate |
Rose
|
Methodological quality of included studies
| Randomization | Allocation Concealment | Analysis by intention to treat | Baseline Compatibility | Blinding | Description of Losses and Exclusions | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Etter et al (2013)
| A | A | A | A | I | I |
|
Rose (1984)
| I | I | I | A | I | I |
|
Thuerauf et al (2000)
| A | I | A | A | A | I |
|
Mullings et al (2009)
| A | A | A | A | A | A |
Abbreviations: A, adequate; I, inadequate.