Development of a test to evaluate olfactory function in a pediatric population

Dalton, Pamela; Mennella, Julie A.; Mauté, Christopher; Castor, Sara M.; Silva-Garcia, Aleida; Slotkin, Jerry; Grindle, Christopher R.; Parkes, W.; Pribitkin, Edmund A.; Reilly, James S.

doi:10.1002/lary.21928

Cited by 35 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…13 In the first study, 369 children (aged 3-17 years) and 277 adults (parents) were tested. In the second study, 50 children (aged 3-4 years) and 43 adults were given a revised version of the test with 8 odors that had been judged to be more representative of the odor source and more familiar to children.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Olfactory assessment using the NIH Toolbox

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The human olfactory system provides us with information about our environment that is critical to our physical and psychological well-being. Individuals can vary widely in their ability to detect, recognize, and identify odors, but still be within the range of normal function. Although several standardized tests of odor identification are available, few specifically address the issues in testing very young children, most of whom are likely to be unfamiliar with many of the odor stimuli used in adult tests and have limited ability to read and identify labels to select among choices. Based on the format of the San Diego Odor Identification Test and the delivery system of the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test, we developed 2 versions of an odor identification test using standardized odor stimuli in a scratch-and-sniff format in which participants match 5 (children) or 9 (adults) odors to pictures representing the odor source. Results from normative testing and validation showed that for most participants, the test could be completed in 5 minutes or less and that the poorer performance among the youngest children and the elderly was consistent with data from tests with larger numbers of items. Expanding on the pediatric version of the test with adult-specific and public health-relevant odors increased the ecological validity of the test and facilitated comparisons of intraindividual performance across developmental stages. The human olfactory system allows us to detect odors, to recognize and discriminate odor qualities, and to identify the sources of odors in our world. Humans are capable of detecting and discriminating thousands of different odorant molecules, many at extremely low concentrations (i.e., parts per billion or trillion). Our sense of smell provides us with information about our air, water, and food that is critical to our health and safety, nutrition, and psychological well-being.The process of olfaction is initiated when volatile chemicals stimulate olfactory receptor neurons located on a relatively small patch of specialized epithelial tissue high in the nasal cavity. 1 These sensory neurons have axons that travel as the olfactory nerve (cranial nerve I) to terminate in the olfactory bulb. In turn, the olfactory bulb projects more centrally and contributes inputs for higher cortical processing, which results in olfactory perception. 2 Odorants reach the olfactory receptors in 2 ways: they can enter the nostrils during normal inhalation (orthonasal route) or travel from the back of the oral cavity to the olfactory receptors via the nasal pharynx (retronasal route). The perception of food flavor involves a combination of olfactory activation caused by odorous compounds released into the nasopharynx retronasally through chewing, drinking, and deglutition, and the blending of taste (salty, sour, bitter, sweet, umami) and oral somatosensory sensations (texture, heat, cold). 3 Nasal blockage and swelling can prevent odors from entering the retronasal stream, resulting in a shi...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Olfactory assessment using the NIH Toolbox

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…12,17 The use of common items in the administration of SDCOIT affects its standardized nature, making interpretation of the findings around olfaction more limited. 20 Similarly, the use of known trigeminal nerve stimulants as part of assessment in Roberts and Simcox's two-odor olfactory measure, and in Hagan's case study, limit the conclusions that can be made about the function of the olfactory system for their cohorts. 14,22 The natural history of olfactory dysfunction post-TBI remains to be established in a pediatric cohort, with findings in the included studies limited by cross-sectional study designs and anecdotal reporting of results.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Recent developments in assessing olfaction in children as young as 3 years are encouraging and are the first step in increasing the awareness of assessment of olfactory function. 20,21 Without clinically applicable, ageappropriate assessment measures, the accurate assessment and identification of olfactory deficits in a clinical setting is likely to continue to be under-represented. The use of such measures in future olfactory function research in young children will assist with previously identified issues of ensuring standardized developmentally appropriate assessment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Though an increasing number of standardized tests currently exist for evaluating olfactory function, those that are applicable to a pediatric cohort (i.e., those that take into account the unique aspects of cognitive and language development in olfactory evaluation in children) are less common. [19][20][21] Though a number of the measures used in the reviewed studies, SDCOIT, and Robert and Simcox's self-piloted measures use visual stimuli to minimize confounders of language, these measures have their own limitations. 12,17 The use of common items in the administration of SDCOIT affects its standardized nature, making interpretation of the findings around olfaction more limited.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Olfactory Dysfunction in Pediatric Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review

Bakker

Catroppa

Anderson

2014

Journal of Neurotrauma

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The neuropsychological outcomes of pediatric traumatic brain injury (TBI) have received increasing study over the past 20 years and are currently well delineated in the research literature. One outcome that has received little attention is that of olfactory dysfunction after pediatric TBI. This is despite literature indicating that anosmia and olfactory dysfunction are common after adult TBI and are likely to be linked to severity of injury, neuropathology, and executive dysfunction. At a clinical level, anosmia is known to be reported after pediatric TBI. Despite this, little is known about its prevalence and recovery. A systematic review was undertaken to provide objective information about olfactory dysfunction post-TBI in children. Despite broad inclusion criteria, only four published studies were identified. The studies found were limited by methodological weaknesses, variability in measures, small sample size, and difficulty of comparison across cohorts studied. Despite this, they reported consistent findings of anosmia and olfactory dysfunction in their TBI cohorts and identified a dose-response relationship between severity of injury and olfactory dysfunction. The results of the studies are discussed in terms of relevant findings, limitations, and areas requiring further exploration.

show abstract

“…This raises the question of whether the test is actually measuring olfactory ability in young children or whether cognitive or language confounds are responsible for their relatively poor performance. Dalton et al observed in their cross‐sectional cohort study that children as young as 3 years of age can perform olfactory testing as they were perfectly capable of understanding the instruction and question of the tests. Nevertheless, we used the Likert scoring system to assess the olfactory function in a high number of patients from 6 to 12 years old showing a good correlation with ARIA severity classification.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%