Abstract:While olfactory dysfunction associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has attracted considerable interest, few studies have tracked outcomes at serial time points or beyond 2 weeks. Furthermore, data are conflicting regarding whether COVID-19 severity correlates with degree of olfactory dysfunction. This prospective case-control study analyzed prevalence and severity of subjective loss of smell in outpatients (n = 23) and inpatients (n = 20) with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronaviru… Show more
“…A total of 11074 COVID-19 patients (mean age 46.7±10.4 years and males 46.9%) were included in the final analysis ( table 1 ). 2 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 The overall prevalence of “loss of smell” in COVID-19 patients was 52.0% (CI: 42.5%-61.6%, I 2 =99.4%) ( Figure 2 ). A total of 21 studies compared these symptoms in COVID-19 patients (n=2196) and controls (n=3425).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Among COVID-19 patients, the odds of patients with severe disease and “loss of smell” were significantly low when compared to patients with severe disease and without “loss of smell” (OR: 0.36, CI 0.27–0.48, p <0.01, I 2 =27.4% ( Figure 4 ). 2 , 21 , 32 , 37 , 52 , 54 , 57 Figure 2 Forest plot demonstrating overall prevalence of “loss of smell” in COVID-19 patients. Figure 3 Forest plot comparing prevalence in COVID-19 vs control group for “loss of smell”.…”
Background
The presence of olfactory dysfunction or “loss of smell” has been reported as an atypical symptom in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature to evaluate the prevalence of “loss of smell” in COVID-19 as well as its utility for prognosticating the disease severity.
Methods
An exhaustive search of the PubMed/Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, LitCovid NIH, and WHO COVID-19 database was conducted through August 6
th
, 2020. All studies reporting the prevalence of “loss of smell” (anosmia and/or hyposmia/microsmia) in laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients were included. Pooled prevalence for cases (positive COVID-19 through reverse transcriptase (RT-PCR) and/or serology IgG/IgM) and controls (negative RT-PCR and/or serology) was compared, and the odds ratio (OR), 95% confidence interval (CI) and the p-value were calculated. A p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results
A total of 51 studies with 11074 confirmed COVID-19 patients were included. Of these, 21 studies used a control group with 3425 patients. The symptom of “loss of smell” (OR: 14.7, CI: 8.9–24.3) was significantly higher in the COVID-19 group when compared to the control group. Seven studies comparing severe COVID-19 patients with- and without “loss of smell” demonstrated favorable prognosis for patients with “loss of smell” (OR: 0.36, CI 0.27–0.48).
Conclusion
Olfactory dysfunction or “loss of smell” is a prevalent symptom in COVID-19 patients. Moreover, COVID-19 patients with “loss of smell” appear to have a milder course of the disease.
“…A total of 11074 COVID-19 patients (mean age 46.7±10.4 years and males 46.9%) were included in the final analysis ( table 1 ). 2 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 The overall prevalence of “loss of smell” in COVID-19 patients was 52.0% (CI: 42.5%-61.6%, I 2 =99.4%) ( Figure 2 ). A total of 21 studies compared these symptoms in COVID-19 patients (n=2196) and controls (n=3425).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Among COVID-19 patients, the odds of patients with severe disease and “loss of smell” were significantly low when compared to patients with severe disease and without “loss of smell” (OR: 0.36, CI 0.27–0.48, p <0.01, I 2 =27.4% ( Figure 4 ). 2 , 21 , 32 , 37 , 52 , 54 , 57 Figure 2 Forest plot demonstrating overall prevalence of “loss of smell” in COVID-19 patients. Figure 3 Forest plot comparing prevalence in COVID-19 vs control group for “loss of smell”.…”
Background
The presence of olfactory dysfunction or “loss of smell” has been reported as an atypical symptom in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature to evaluate the prevalence of “loss of smell” in COVID-19 as well as its utility for prognosticating the disease severity.
Methods
An exhaustive search of the PubMed/Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, LitCovid NIH, and WHO COVID-19 database was conducted through August 6
th
, 2020. All studies reporting the prevalence of “loss of smell” (anosmia and/or hyposmia/microsmia) in laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients were included. Pooled prevalence for cases (positive COVID-19 through reverse transcriptase (RT-PCR) and/or serology IgG/IgM) and controls (negative RT-PCR and/or serology) was compared, and the odds ratio (OR), 95% confidence interval (CI) and the p-value were calculated. A p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results
A total of 51 studies with 11074 confirmed COVID-19 patients were included. Of these, 21 studies used a control group with 3425 patients. The symptom of “loss of smell” (OR: 14.7, CI: 8.9–24.3) was significantly higher in the COVID-19 group when compared to the control group. Seven studies comparing severe COVID-19 patients with- and without “loss of smell” demonstrated favorable prognosis for patients with “loss of smell” (OR: 0.36, CI 0.27–0.48).
Conclusion
Olfactory dysfunction or “loss of smell” is a prevalent symptom in COVID-19 patients. Moreover, COVID-19 patients with “loss of smell” appear to have a milder course of the disease.
“…In total, 78 studies were included to calculate the prevalence of headache in COVID-19 and all studies were published in 2020. The studies were conducted in Brazil 50 , China 13,51-96 , Egypt 97 , France 98-101 , Germany 102 , India 103,104 , Italy [105][106][107][108][109][110][111] , Japan 112,113 , Jordan 114 , Somalia 115 , South Korea 116,117 , Spain 118,119 , Turkey 120,121 , and the US [122][123][124][125][126] . Two studies were cross-sectional 119,122 , five were prospective cohort studies 65,90,98,110,121 and the remaining 71 studies were retrospective studies.…”
Background: This study was conducted to determine the prevalence of headache in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and to assess its association as a predictor for COVID-19. This study also aimed to discuss the possible pathogenesis of headache in COVID-19. Methods: Available articles from PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched as of September 2nd, 2020. Data on characteristics of the study, headache and COVID-19 were extracted following the PRISMA guidelines. Biases were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The cumulative prevalence of headache was calculated for the general population (i.e. adults and children). The pooled odd ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) was calculated using the Z test to assess the association between headache and the presence of COVID-19 cases. Results: We included 104,751 COVID-19 cases from 78 eligible studies to calculate the global prevalence of headache in COVID-19 and 17 studies were included to calculate the association of headache and COVID-19. The cumulative prevalence of headache in COVID-19 was 25.2% (26,464 out of 104,751 cases). Headache was found to be more prevalent, approximately by two-fold, in COVID-19 patients than in non-COVID-19 patients with symptoms of other respiratory viral infections, OR: 1.73; 95% CI: 1.94, 2.5 with p=0.04. Conclusion: Headache is common among COVID-19 patients and seems to be more common in COVID-19 patients compared to those with the non-COVID-19 viral infection. No definitive mechanisms on how headache emerges in COVID-19 patients but several possible hypotheses have been proposed. However, extensive studies are warranted to elucidate the mechanisms. PROSPERO registration: CRD42020210332 (28/09/2020)
“…In our follow-up period, a mean of 59.2 days after the second negative PCR test, we found that OD had resolved in 64.9% of the patients and none reported residual nasal obstruction. Our analysis is characterized by a relatively long follow-up period and high percentage of residual OD compared to reports in the literature (3,4,12,(14)(15)(16) and provides a complementary data regarding the clinical course of OD and GD.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…Few studies have tracked outcomes at serial time points and have shown a gradual improvement in olfactory and gustatory functions over time. (3,4) Further analysis by Paderno et al. (4) found nasal congestion, gender, and grade of dysfunction, as risk-factors for late resolution from OD.…”
Introduction: Olfactory and gustatory chemosensory dysfunctions are very prevalent in COVID-19 infection, our aim is to further explore chemosensory recovery among these patients.Methods: This is a cross-sectional follow-up study, which serves as a sequel to a study by Biadsee, et al. Among the previous study population of 128 non-hospitalized patients, who were tested positive for COVID-19 by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Ninety-seven patients participated in a telephone survey designed for this study. Recovery of olfactory and gustatory functions were defined when a score is greater or equal to that reported before the disease. Persistent hyposmia and hypogeusia were defined as lower scores reported during follow-up, compared with scores before the disease. Results: A total of 43 men and 54 women were included. Mean age was 37 years (range 18-73). Mean follow-up was 59.2 days (range 21-83). At follow-up, 72 (74.2%) patients reported normalization of gustatory function and 63 (64.9%) reported normalization of olfactory function. No patient reported nasal obstruction at follow-up. Recovery of olfactory function was positively correlated with gustatory recovery (p=0.003). Twenty-three (23.7%) reported persistent xerostomia. Women who reported persistent xerostomia had higher rates of olfactory and gustatory dysfunction (p=0.006 and p=0.008, respectively) than those who did not. Olfactory and gustatory disorders as initial symptoms were negative prognostic factors for recovery. Conclusion: Olfactory and/or gustatory dysfunction as a presenting symptom of COVID-19 infection may be a negative prognostic factor for full recovery of olfactory and gustatory function.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
