Kathleen E Bainbridge1, Danita Byrd-Clark2, Donald Leopold3. 1. National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 2. Social & Scientific Systems, Inc, Silver Spring, Maryland. 3. University of Vermont Medical Center, Burlington.
Abstract
Importance: Phantom odor perception can be a debilitating condition. Factors associated with phantom odor perception have not been reported using population-based epidemiologic data. Objective: To estimate the prevalence of phantom odor perception among US adults 40 years and older and identify factors associated with this condition. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional study with complex sampling design, 7417 adults 40 years and older made up a nationally representative sample from data collected in 2011 through 2014 as part of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Exposures: Sociodemographic characteristics, cigarette and alcohol use, head injury, persistent dry mouth, smell function, and general health status. Main Outcomes and Measures: Phantom odor perception ascertained as report of unpleasant, bad, or burning odor when no actual odor exists. Results: Of the 7417 participants in the study, 52.8% (3862) were women, the mean (SD) age was 58 (12) years, and the prevalence of phantom odor perception occurred in 534 participants, which was 6.5% of the population (95% CI, 5.7%-7.5%). Phantom odor prevalence varied considerably by age and sex. Women 60 years and older reported phantom odors less commonly (7.5% [n = 935] and 5.5% [n = 937] among women aged 60-69 years and 70 years and older, respectively) than younger women (9.6% [n = 1028] and 10.1% [n = 962] among those aged 40-49 years and 50-59 years, respectively). The prevalence among men varied from 2.5% (n = 846) among men 70 years and older to 5.3% (n = 913) among men 60 to 69 years old. Phantom odor perception was 60% (n = 1602) to 65% (n = 2521) more likely among those with an income-to-poverty ratio of less than 3 compared with those in the highest income-to-poverty ratio group (odds ratio [OR], 1.65; 95% CI, 1.06-2.56; and OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.01-2.54 for income-to-poverty ratio <1.5 and 1.5-2.9, respectively). Health conditions associated with phantom odor perception included persistent dry mouth (OR, 3.03; 95% CI, 2.17-4.24) and history of head injury (OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.20-2.51). Conclusions and Relevance: An age-related decline in the prevalence of phantom odor perception is observed in women but not in men. Only 11% (n = 64) of people who report phantom odor perception have discussed a taste or smell problem with a clinician. Associations of phantom odor perception with poorer health and persistent dry mouth point to medication use as a potential explanation. Prevention of serious head injuries could have the added benefit of reducing phantom odor perception.
Importance: Phantom odor perception can be a debilitating condition. Factors associated with phantom odor perception have not been reported using population-based epidemiologic data. Objective: To estimate the prevalence of phantom odor perception among US adults 40 years and older and identify factors associated with this condition. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional study with complex sampling design, 7417 adults 40 years and older made up a nationally representative sample from data collected in 2011 through 2014 as part of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Exposures: Sociodemographic characteristics, cigarette and alcohol use, head injury, persistent dry mouth, smell function, and general health status. Main Outcomes and Measures: Phantom odor perception ascertained as report of unpleasant, bad, or burning odor when no actual odor exists. Results: Of the 7417 participants in the study, 52.8% (3862) were women, the mean (SD) age was 58 (12) years, and the prevalence of phantom odor perception occurred in 534 participants, which was 6.5% of the population (95% CI, 5.7%-7.5%). Phantom odor prevalence varied considerably by age and sex. Women 60 years and older reported phantom odors less commonly (7.5% [n = 935] and 5.5% [n = 937] among women aged 60-69 years and 70 years and older, respectively) than younger women (9.6% [n = 1028] and 10.1% [n = 962] among those aged 40-49 years and 50-59 years, respectively). The prevalence among men varied from 2.5% (n = 846) among men 70 years and older to 5.3% (n = 913) among men 60 to 69 years old. Phantom odor perception was 60% (n = 1602) to 65% (n = 2521) more likely among those with an income-to-poverty ratio of less than 3 compared with those in the highest income-to-poverty ratio group (odds ratio [OR], 1.65; 95% CI, 1.06-2.56; and OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.01-2.54 for income-to-poverty ratio <1.5 and 1.5-2.9, respectively). Health conditions associated with phantom odor perception included persistent dry mouth (OR, 3.03; 95% CI, 2.17-4.24) and history of head injury (OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.20-2.51). Conclusions and Relevance: An age-related decline in the prevalence of phantom odor perception is observed in women but not in men. Only 11% (n = 64) of people who report phantom odor perception have discussed a taste or smell problem with a clinician. Associations of phantom odor perception with poorer health and persistent dry mouth point to medication use as a potential explanation. Prevention of serious head injuries could have the added benefit of reducing phantom odor perception.
Authors: G T Sutherland; P J Sheahan; J Matthews; C V P Dennis; D S Sheedy; T McCrossin; M A Curtis; J J Kril Journal: Exp Neurol Date: 2013-03-28 Impact factor: 5.330
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: Leah M Fleming; Frances-Julia B Jaynes; Summer L Thompson; Philip R Corlett; Jane R Taylor Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2022-04-07 Impact factor: 4.415
Authors: Robert Pellegrino; Joel D Mainland; Christine E Kelly; Jane K Parker; Thomas Hummel Journal: Chem Senses Date: 2021-01-01 Impact factor: 3.160
Authors: Johanna C Badcock; Frank Larøi; Karina Kamp; India Kelsall-Foreman; Romola S Bucks; Michael Weinborn; Marieke Begemann; John-Paul Taylor; Daniel Collerton; John T O'Brien; Mohamad El Haj; Dominic Ffytche; Iris E Sommer Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2020-12-01 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Joel D Mainland; Linda A Barlow; Steven D Munger; Sarah E Millar; M Natalia Vergara; Peihua Jiang; James E Schwob; Bradley J Goldstein; Shannon E Boye; Jeffrey R Martens; Donald A Leopold; Linda M Bartoshuk; Richard L Doty; Thomas Hummel; Jayant M Pinto; Casey Trimmer; Christine Kelly; Edmund A Pribitkin; Danielle R Reed Journal: Chem Senses Date: 2020-10-09 Impact factor: 3.160