Mueller Christian A, Grassinger Elisabeth, Naka Asami, Temmel Andreas F P, Hummel Thomas, Kobal Gerd
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Medical University of Vienna, AKH Wien, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090 Wien, Austria.
Chem Senses. 2006 Jul;31(6):595-8. doi: 10.1093/chemse/bjj064. Epub 2006 Jun 5.
Assessment of smell function in clinical routine is often limited due to a lack of time and/or costs of the personnel administering the test. The aim of the present study was to validate a procedure allowing for self-administered olfactory testing in a clinical setting. Seventy-four healthy subjects (13 male, 61 female) from 18 to 30 years of age (mean 20.3 years) were tested on 2 days (interval 7-21 days, mean 8.7 days) with 16 odors of the "Sniffin' Sticks" identification test kit. On one occasion, the test was administered by an examiner. On another occasion, subjects administered the test to themselves, with the odors being identified after they had been "painted" on a sheet of paper. No significant differences were obtained between the results from both test procedures. With a maximum score of 16, assisted testing yielded a mean score of 13.7 [standard deviation (SD) 1.3] while the self-administered procedure yielded an average score of 13.8 (SD = 1.5) (P = 0.72). The mean difference between the assisted and the self-administered smell test procedures was 0.05 (SD = 1.28). The 95% confidence interval of differences ranged from -2.51 to 2.61. These results suggest that odor identification with the Sniffin' Sticks can also be administered by the subjects themselves.
在临床常规中，由于缺乏时间和/或进行测试的人员成本，嗅觉功能评估常常受到限制。本研究的目的是验证一种可在临床环境中进行自我嗅觉测试的方法。对74名年龄在18至30岁（平均20.3岁）的健康受试者（13名男性，61名女性）在两天内（间隔7至21天，平均8.7天）使用“嗅觉棒”识别测试试剂盒中的16种气味进行测试。一次由检查人员进行测试。另一次，受试者自行进行测试，气味被“涂抹”在一张纸上后进行识别。两种测试方法的结果之间未获得显著差异。满分16分，辅助测试的平均得分为13.7 [标准差（SD）1.3]，而自我测试方法的平均得分为13.8（SD = 1.5）（P = 0.72）。辅助和自我嗅觉测试方法之间的平均差异为0.05（SD = 1.28）。差异 的95%置信区间为-2.51至2.61。这些结果表明，使用嗅觉棒进行气味识别也可以由受试者自行完成。
