No abstract

No abstract

Introduction: Olfactory dysfunction (OD) is a frequent medical condition which might determine an important reduction of the patient's quality of life (QoL). The analysis of OD-related QoL may play an important role in clinical practice since the patient's perspectives may influence clinical decisions and could be used to monitor the longitudinal course of individual outcomes. Evidence acquisition: Only a limited number of specific instrument able to evaluate OD-related QoL have been proposed so far and their clinical application is limited. The aim of this review was to analyze the available instruments useful for OD-related QoL measurement in order to increase clinicians' awareness of OD and their ability to evaluate its impact. Evidence synthesis: The Questionnaire of Olfactory Disorders (QOD) is the more widely used but its internal consistency is poor. The Importance of Olfaction Questionnaire demonstrated a good internal consistency but no information regarding its reliability are available. The Self-Administered Odor Questionnaire (SAOQ) demonstrated satisfactory clinical validity and responsiveness to changes but no information regarding its internal consistency and reliability are available. The Scandinavian adaptation of the Multi-Clinic Smell and Taste Questionnaire (MCSTQ-Sc) appears too time consuming. Finally, the Modified Short version of the QOD (MS-QOD) demonstrated satisfactory internal consistency, optimal test re-test reliability and satisfactory discriminant and convergent validity. Conclusions: There is a need for a psychometrically robust, time-and cost-efficient, easy-to-use instrument to be used in everyday clinical practice for the evaluation of the impact of OD on patient's QoL

No abstract

AIMTo evaluate efficiency of ventilation during exercise in emphysema after lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) compared to medical treatment (MED).METHODS41 patients with emphysema were randomized into LVRS (33) or MED (8). Data were compared from a cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPX) using a 5 or 10 watt protocol. CPX was performed at baseline and 12 months post randomization. T‐test with a Bonferroni correction was used determine statistical differences at p<0.01.RESULTSBaseline demographics and exercise evaluations were the same between groups. LVRS demonstrated improved work capacity [37 (17) vs 50 (18) Watts, p<0.01], improved PetCO2 [42.9 (6.0) to 38.4 (3.8) mmHg, p<0.001)], and increased ventilation [(VE) (24.9 (7.2) vs 31.6 (10.6) liters/min, p<0.005)] while no change was found in the MED group. At 12 months LVRS improved versus MED for VE [(31.6 (10.6) vs 22.1 (6.9) liters/min, p<0.01)], and Wattage [50 (18) vs 33 (15) Watts, p<0.005], with a trend in PetCO2 [38.4 (3.8) vs 47.1 (8.7) mmHg, p<0.001].DISCUSSIONLVRS improved ventilation allowing improved exercise capacity. These improvements may be due to removal of alveolar dead space in the LVRS group with improved pulmonary mechanics and improved ventilatory efficiency. Further elucidation of the mechanisms of improvement needs to be done with more detailed analysis of ventilatory mechanics with exercise. Supported by the VIDDA foundation

No abstract

No abstract