Back

The usefulness of a quantitative olfactory test for the detection of COVID-19.

Lessa, M. A.; Cotta-Pereira, S. M. R.; Ferreira, F. A.; Castineira, T. M. P. P.; Galiez, R. d. M.; Faffe, D. S.; Leitao, I. d. C.; Mariani, D.; Nascimento, E. R. d. S.; Lessa, F. S.; Succi, I. B.; Pedreira, C. E.

2021-01-26 infectious diseases
10.1101/2021.01.20.21250173 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, olfactory dysfunction (anosmia or hyposmia) has been reported by many patients and recognized as a prevalent and early symptom of infection. This finding has been associated with viral-induced olfactory neuron dysfunction rather than the nasal congestion typically found in cold- or flu-like states. In literature, the prevalence of anosmia varies from 15% to 85%, and the studies, in general, were based on the subjective evaluation of patients self-reports of loss of smell (yes or no question). In the present study, we quantitatively evaluated olfactory dysfunction and the prevalence of fever in symptomatic patients suspected of having COVID-19 using a scratch-and-sniff olfactory test and infrared temperature testing with RT-PCR as the gold-standard comparator method to diagnose COVID-19 infection. MethodsOutpatients had their forehead temperature checked with an infrared non-contact thermometer (temperature guns). After that, they received two olfactory smell identification test (SIT) cards (u-Smell-it; CT, USA) that each had 5 scent windows and were asked to scratch with a pencil and sniff each of the 10 small circles containing the microencapsulated fragrances and mark the best option on a response card. Nasopharyngeal swabs were then collected for Reverse Transcriptase-Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) to determine if the patients were positive or negative for COVID-19 infection. We considered the number of hits (correct answers) [&le;] 5 as positive for loss of smell (LOS) in the olfactory test; [&ge;] 6 hits was considered negative for LOS (i.e. normal olfactory function). All data were analyzed using Excel and Matlab software. ResultsIn the present study, 165 patients were eligible for the olfactory test and nasopharyngeal swab collection RT-PCR. Five patients were excluded because of inconclusive PCR results (n=2) and missing data (n=3). A total of 160 patients completed all the protocols. The RT-PCR positivity rate for COVID-19 was 27.5% (n=44), and PCR+ patients scored significantly worse in the olfactory test (5.5{+/-}3.5) compared to RT-PCR-patients (8.2{+/-}1.8, p<0.001). 0/44 PCR+ patients presented with a fever ([&ge;]37.8{degrees}C). In contrast an olfactory SIT had a specificity of 94.8% (95% CI, 89.1 - 98.1), sensitivity of 47.7% (95% CI, 32.7 - 63.3), accuracy of 0.82 (95% CI, 0.75 - 0.87), positive predictive value of 77.8% (95% CI, 59.6 - 88.8), negative predictive value of 82.7% (85% CI, 78.7 - 86.7), and odds ratio of 16.7. ConclusionOur results suggest that temperature checking failed to detect COVID-19 infection, while an olfactory test may be useful to help identify COVID-19 infection in symptomatic patients.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Chemical Senses
30 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
28.0%
2
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 6%
10.2%
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 20%
9.3%
4
Microbiology Spectrum
435 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
3.6%
50% of probability mass above
5
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
378 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.8%
6
Journal of Medical Microbiology
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.8%
7
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
134 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.6%
8
Journal of Clinical Virology
62 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.4%
9
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
126 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.9%
10
Journal of Medical Virology
137 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
11
The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
60 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
12
Journal of Infection and Chemotherapy
16 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
13
Journal of Infection
71 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
14
Clinical Microbiology and Infection
60 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.7%
15
European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.5%
16
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
182 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
17
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.0%
18
Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease
21 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
19
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
98 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
20
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
120 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
21
Virus Research
36 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
22
Frontiers in Neurology
91 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
23
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
24
Heliyon
146 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.7%
25
Journal of Hospital Infection
27 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.7%
26
mSphere
281 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.7%
27
Frontiers in Microbiology
375 papers in training set
Top 11%
0.5%
28
Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
25 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
29
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.5%