Methods of evaluation of smell in victims of subarachnoid hemorrhage patients: A systematic review

0Citations
Citations of this article
15Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Purpose: To systematically review the methods for evaluation of smell in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage victims and to identify the changes found with the use of these methods. Research strategy: The literature search was performed in PubMed search platform and in the databases Web of Science, Scopus, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and ScienceDirect in August and September 2014. Selection criteria: Original articles published in any language, which addressed smell changes in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage and addressed to evaluate this function through specific methods were included. Review studies, case studies, book chapters, editorial, and studies that address the nonaneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage were excluded. Data analysis: The following variables were considered in data analysis: author/year, country, sample/age, treatment, method, the moment of smell evaluation, and results. Results: The search for articles resulted in 1,763 articles, of which, 9 original articles were selected for this review. It was observed that all articles were from European and Asian countries. Standardized and nonstandardized tests and questionnaires were used in olfactory assessment, and the goals ranged from assessing the smell before and/or after surgery in this population. Conclusion: Heterogeneity was observed in the methods used to evaluate the smell in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage and in the methods selected for application of evaluations. In addition, studies have demonstrated the existence of olfactory deficits in patients and the relationship between surgery and olfactory dysfunction.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Lima, S. J. H., Filho, H. R. C. de A., & da Silva, H. J. (2016). Methods of evaluation of smell in victims of subarachnoid hemorrhage patients: A systematic review. CODAS, 28(1), 81–88. https://doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20162015011

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free