The assessment of qualitative olfactory dysfunction in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review of tools and their content validity

5Citations
Citations of this article
13Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Background: There is a lack of overview of the tools used to assess qualitative olfactory dysfunction, including parosmia and phantosmia, following COVID-19 illness. This could have an impact on the diagnosis and treatment offered to patients. Additionally, the formulations of symptoms are inconsistent and often unclear, and consensus around the wording of questions and responses is needed. Aim of study: The aim of this systematic review is to provide an overview of tools used to assess qualitative olfactory dysfunction after COVID-19, in addition to addressing the content validity (i.e., item and response formulations) of these tools. Methods: MEDLINE, Web of Science, and EMBASE were searched 5th of August 2022 and updated on the 25th of April 2023 to identify studies that assess qualitative olfactory dysfunction in COVID-19 patients. Primary outcomes were the tool used (i.e., questionnaire or objective test) and item and response formulations. Secondary outcomes included psychometric properties, study design, and demographic variables. Results: The assessment of qualitative olfactory dysfunction is characterized by heterogeneity, inconsistency, and lack of validated tools to determine the presence and degree of symptoms. Several tools with overlapping and distinct features were identified in this review, of which some were thorough and detailed, while others were merely assessing the presence of symptoms as a binary measure. Item and response formulations are also inconsistent and often used interchangeably, which may lead to confusion, incorrect diagnoses, and inappropriate methods for solving the problem. Conclusions: There is an unmet need for a reliable and validated tool for assessing qualitative olfactory dysfunction, preferably one that also captures quantitative olfactory issues (i.e., loss of smell), to ensure time-effective and specific assessment of the ability to smell. A consensus around the formulation of items and response options is also important to increase the understanding of the problem, both for clinicians, researchers, and the patient, and ultimately to provide the appropriate diagnosis and treatment. Registration and protocol: The URL is https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=351621. A preregistered protocol was submitted and accepted (12.09.22) in the International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) with the registration number CRD42022351621.

References Powered by Scopus

The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

40145Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews

11204Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

'Sniffin' sticks'. Olfactory performance assessed by the combined testing of odor identification, odor discrimination and olfactory threshold

2139Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Updated Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Long COVID

9Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Factors Associated With Persisting Olfactory Dysfunction After COVID-19

0Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The Molecular Basis of Olfactory Dysfunction in COVID-19 and Long COVID

0Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Espetvedt, A., Wiig, S., Myrnes-Hansen, K. V., & Brønnick, K. K. (2023). The assessment of qualitative olfactory dysfunction in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review of tools and their content validity. Frontiers in Psychology. Frontiers Media SA. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1190994

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

Lecturer / Post doc 1

33%

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 1

33%

Researcher 1

33%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 5

83%

Psychology 1

17%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Social Media
Shares, Likes & Comments: 64

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free