• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

Curr Allergy Asthma Rep . Frequency and Clinical Utility of Olfactory Dysfunction in COVID-19: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
Curr Allergy Asthma Rep


. 2020 Oct 13;20(12):76.
doi: 10.1007/s11882-020-00972-y.
Frequency and Clinical Utility of Olfactory Dysfunction in COVID-19: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis


Khang Wen Pang[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Jeremy Chee[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Somasundaram Subramaniam[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Chew Lip Ng[SUP] 3 [/SUP]



Affiliations

Abstract

Background: Olfactory dysfunction (OD) has been gaining recognition as a symptom of COVID-19, but its clinical utility has not been well defined.
Objectives: To quantify the clinical utility of identifying OD in the diagnosis of COVID-19 and determine an estimate of the frequency of OD amongst these patients.
Methods: PubMed was searched up to 1 August 2020. Meta-analysis A included studies if they compared the frequency of OD in COVID-19 positive patients (proven by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction) to COVID-19 negative controls. Meta-analysis B included studies if they described the frequency of OD in COVID-19 positive patients and if OD symptoms were explicitly asked in questionnaires or interviews or if smell tests were performed.
Results: The pooled frequency of OD in COVID-19 positive patients (17,401 patients, 60 studies) was 0.56 (0.47-0.64) but differs between detection via smell testing (0.76 [0.51-0.91]) and survey/questionnaire report (0.53 [0.45-0.62]), although not reaching statistical significance (p = 0.089). Patients with reported OD were more likely to test positive for COVID-19 (diagnostic odds ratio 11.5 [8.01-16.5], sensitivity 0.48 (0.40 to 0.56), specificity 0.93 (0.90 to 0.96), positive likelihood ratio 6.10 (4.47-8.32) and negative likelihood ratio 0.58 (0.52-0.64)). There was significant heterogeneity amongst studies with possible publication bias.
Conclusion: Frequency of OD in COVID-19 differs greatly across studies. Nevertheless, patients with reported OD were significantly more likely to test positive for COVID-19. Patient-reported OD is a highly specific symptom of COVID-19 which should be included as part of the pre-test screening of suspect patients.

Keywords: COVID-19; Coronavirus 2; Meta-analysis; Olfaction disorders; Severe acute respiratory syndrome.
 
Back
Top Bottom