Suppr超能文献

使用不同嗅觉测试方法的诊断结果比较。

Comparison of diagnostic findings using different olfactory test methods.

作者信息

Tsukatani Toshiaki, Reiter Evan R, Miwa Takaki, Costanzo Richard M

机构信息

Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, VA Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia 23298, USA.

出版信息

Laryngoscope. 2005 Jun;115(6):1114-7. doi: 10.1097/01.MLG.0000163754.16475.43.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To quantify discrepancies in the diagnosis of olfactory function that might exist when comparing results obtained from centers using different methods of olfactory testing.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective study of 50 healthy adult volunteers and 25 adult patients with olfactory complaints.

METHODS

Two test methods, the Connecticut Chemosensory Clinical Research Center (CCCRC) test widely used in the United States, and the Jet Stream Olfactometer (JSO) test used in Japan, were used to measure and categorize the diagnostic level of olfactory function (normosmia, mild hyposmia, moderate hyposmia, severe hyposmia, anosmia). Olfactory function was measured separately for each nostril.

RESULTS

There was a significant correlation (rs = 0.788, P < .01, n = 150 nostrils) between diagnostic categories assigned by the CCCRC and JSO test methods. Diagnostic categories were identical for 66.7% of the nostrils tested, and in only 7.3% of the cases did the results differ by more than one category. For the anosmic and normosmic categories, test results were in agreement 91.7% of the time, whereas for the hyposmic categories (mild, moderate, and severe) results were in agreement only 22.2% of the time.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results demonstrate that when comparing clinical or research data obtained from centers using different olfactory test methods, subjects with diagnoses of anosmia or normosmia may be more reliably compared than those with different levels of hyposmia.

摘要

目的

量化在比较使用不同嗅觉测试方法的中心所获得的结果时,嗅觉功能诊断中可能存在的差异。

研究设计

对50名健康成年志愿者和25名有嗅觉问题的成年患者进行前瞻性研究。

方法

使用两种测试方法,即美国广泛使用的康涅狄格化学感觉临床研究中心(CCCRC)测试和日本使用的喷射气流嗅觉计(JSO)测试,来测量嗅觉功能的诊断水平并进行分类(嗅觉正常、轻度嗅觉减退、中度嗅觉减退、重度嗅觉减退、嗅觉丧失)。每个鼻孔分别测量嗅觉功能。

结果

CCCRC和JSO测试方法所指定的诊断类别之间存在显著相关性(rs = 0.788,P <.01,n = 150个鼻孔)。在66.7%的测试鼻孔中,诊断类别相同,仅在7.3%的病例中,结果相差超过一个类别。对于嗅觉丧失和嗅觉正常类别,测试结果在91.7%的时间内一致,而对于嗅觉减退类别(轻度、中度和重度),结果仅在22.2%的时间内一致。

结论

我们的结果表明,在比较使用不同嗅觉测试方法的中心所获得的临床或研究数据时,与不同程度嗅觉减退的受试者相比,诊断为嗅觉丧失或嗅觉正常的受试者可能更可靠地进行比较。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验