A short olfactory test based on the identification of three odors

Hummel, Thomas; Pfetzing, Ute; Lötsch, Jörn

doi:10.1007/s00415-010-5516-5

Cited by 58 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Whereas previous studies focused on even shorter sets of three odors in the Sniffin' Sticks or UPSIT,9, 10, 11, 12, 13 in our analysis six to eight odors emerged as the smallest number with equal performance as the entire set. In line with previous evidence,25 this argues against the concept of selective anosmia in PD 13.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 56%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Optimizing odor identification testing as quick and accurate diagnostic tool for Parkinson's disease

Mahlknecht

Pechlaner²,

Boesveldt

et al. 2016

Mov Disord.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionThe aim of this study was to evaluate odor identification testing as a quick, cheap, and reliable tool to identify PD.MethodsOdor identification with the 16‐item Sniffin' Sticks test (SS‐16) was assessed in a total of 646 PD patients and 606 controls from three European centers (A, B, and C), as well as 75 patients with atypical parkinsonism or essential tremor and in a prospective cohort of 24 patients with idiopathic rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder (center A). Reduced odor sets most discriminative for PD were determined in a discovery cohort derived from a random split of PD patients and controls from center A using L1‐regularized logistic regression. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed in the rest of the patients/controls as validation cohorts.ResultsOlfactory performance was lower in PD patients compared with controls and non‐PD patients in all cohorts (each P < 0.001). Both the full SS‐16 and a subscore of the top eight discriminating odors (SS‐8) were associated with an excellent discrimination of PD from controls (areas under the curve ≥0.90; sensitivities ≥83.3%; specificities ≥82.0%) and from non‐PD patients (areas under the curve ≥0.91; sensitivities ≥84.1%; specificities ≥84.0%) in all cohorts. This remained unchanged when patients with >3 years of disease duration were excluded from analysis. All 8 incident PD cases among patients with idiopathic rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder were predicted with the SS‐16 and the SS‐8 (sensitivity, 100%; positive predictive value, 61.5%).ConclusionsOdor identification testing provides excellent diagnostic accuracy in the distinction of PD patients from controls and diagnostic mimics. A reduced set of eight odors could be used as a quick tool in the workup of patients presenting with parkinsonism and for PD risk indication. © 2016 The Authors. Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 56%

“…Both tests are time‐consuming, and olfactory testing is rarely performed in clinical routine. Most of existing shortened versions of odor identification tests were not specifically developed for PD patients, nor were any of these tests properly validated 9, 10, 11, 12, 13…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimizing odor identification testing as quick and accurate diagnostic tool for Parkinson's disease

Mahlknecht

Pechlaner²,

Boesveldt

et al. 2016

Mov Disord.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are also shortened tests with 3 [84] or 5 odor probes [85] which give good clinical data but only allow for limited conclusions to be drawn. The odors are distributed in felt-pen like devices.…”

Section: The Sense Of Smellmentioning

confidence: 99%

Smell and taste disorders

Hummel

Landis²,

Hüttenbrink³

2011

GMS Current Topics in Otorhinolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery; 10:Doc04; ISSN 1865-1011

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The two mainly used tests are the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT), which is based on the scratch and sniff technique [1] and the 16-item odor identification test using the ''Sniffin' Sticks'' test [8]. Many modified versions of these two tests have been addressed [3,6,[9][10][11][12][13].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A computer-controlled olfactometer for a self-administered odor identification test

Schriever¹,

Körner²,

Beyer³

et al. 2011

Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Odor identification tests are widely used for the general screening of olfactory function. However, the administration of odor identification tests is often limited due to a lack of investigators' time. Therefore, we attempted to design a computer-controlled olfactometer to present a self-administered odor identification test. The results produced by means of this olfactometer were evaluated in terms of validity and test-retest reliability. To test the validity, participants' performance in the odor identification test using the olfactometer was compared with their performance in the odor identification test using the validated assessment of the "Sniffin' Sticks" test. The ten-item odor identification test was performed two times using two different methods: (1) the self-administered test using the computer-controlled olfactometer and (2) the foreign-administered test using the "Sniffin' sticks." To examine test-retest reliability, 20 participants were asked to repeat these tests on a different day. Participants reached significantly higher scores on a foreign-administered odor identification test using the "Sniffin' sticks" than on the olfactometer-based test; however, this effect was driven by two less correctly identified odors in the olfactometer-based test. The significant difference between both methods in the mean scores disappeared after excluding two odors from the analysis. In addition, both methods showed no significant difference in scores obtained during the first and second session, indicating that results were consistent between sessions. In conclusion, our findings demonstrate that the computer-controlled olfactometer designed in this study can be used for a self-administered odor identification test.

show abstract

A short olfactory test based on the identification of three odors

Cited by 58 publications

References 22 publications

Optimizing odor identification testing as quick and accurate diagnostic tool for Parkinson's disease

Optimizing odor identification testing as quick and accurate diagnostic tool for Parkinson's disease

Smell and taste disorders

A computer-controlled olfactometer for a self-administered odor identification test

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About