Espetvedt Annelin, Wiig Siri, Myrnes-Hansen Kai Victor, Brønnick Kolbjørn Kallesten
Department of Quality and Health Technology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway.
SHARE-Centre for Resilience in Healthcare, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway.
Front Psychol. 2023 Jun 20;14:1190994. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1190994. eCollection 2023.
There is a lack of overview of the tools used to assess qualitative olfactory dysfunction, including parosmia and phantosmia, following COVID-19 illness. This could have an impact on the diagnosis and treatment offered to patients. Additionally, the formulations of symptoms are inconsistent and often unclear, and consensus around the wording of questions and responses is needed.
The aim of this systematic review is to provide an overview of tools used to assess qualitative olfactory dysfunction after COVID-19, in addition to addressing the content validity (i.e., item and response formulations) of these tools.
MEDLINE, Web of Science, and EMBASE were searched 5 of August 2022 and updated on the 25 of April 2023 to identify studies that assess qualitative olfactory dysfunction in COVID-19 patients. Primary outcomes were the tool used (i.e., questionnaire or objective test) and item and response formulations. Secondary outcomes included psychometric properties, study design, and demographic variables.
The assessment of qualitative olfactory dysfunction is characterized by heterogeneity, inconsistency, and lack of validated tools to determine the presence and degree of symptoms. Several tools with overlapping and distinct features were identified in this review, of which some were thorough and detailed, while others were merely assessing the presence of symptoms as a binary measure. Item and response formulations are also inconsistent and often used interchangeably, which may lead to confusion, incorrect diagnoses, and inappropriate methods for solving the problem.
There is an unmet need for a reliable and validated tool for assessing qualitative olfactory dysfunction, preferably one that also captures quantitative olfactory issues (i.e., loss of smell), to ensure time-effective and specific assessment of the ability to smell. A consensus around the formulation of items and response options is also important to increase the understanding of the problem, both for clinicians, researchers, and the patient, and ultimately to provide the appropriate diagnosis and treatment.
The URL is https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=351621. A preregistered protocol was submitted and accepted (12.09.22) in the International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) with the registration number CRD42022351621.
对于新冠感染后用于评估包括嗅觉倒错和嗅觉幻觉在内的定性嗅觉功能障碍的工具，目前缺乏综述。这可能会影响为患者提供的诊断和治疗。此外，症状的表述不一致且往往不明确，需要就问题和回答的措辞达成共识。
本系统评价的目的是概述用于评估新冠感染后定性嗅觉功能障碍的工具，并解决这些工具的内容效度（即条目和回答的表述）问题。
于2022年8月5日检索了MEDLINE、科学网和EMBASE，并于2023年4月25日更新，以识别评估新冠患者定性嗅觉功能障碍的研究。主要结局是所使用的工具（即问卷或客观测试）以及条目和回答的表述。次要结局包括心理测量学特性、研究设计和人口统计学变量。
定性嗅觉功能障碍的评估具有异质性、不一致性，并且缺乏用于确定症状的存在和程度的经过验证的工具。在本综述中识别出了几种具有重叠和不同特征的工具，其中一些工具全面且详细，而另一些工具仅将症状的存在作为二元测量进行评估。条目和回答的表述也不一致，并且经常互换使用，这可能会导致混淆、错误诊断以及解决问题的方法不当。
迫切需要一种可靠且经过验证的工具来评估定性嗅觉功能障碍，最好是一种还能捕捉定量嗅觉问题（即嗅觉丧失）的工具，以确保对嗅觉能力进行及时有效的特异性评估。就条目和回答选项的表述达成共识对于临床医生、研究人员和患者更好地理解该问题也很重要，最终有助于提供适当的诊断和治疗。
