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.
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) [≤] 5 as positive for loss of smell (LOS) in the olfactory test; [≥] 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 ([≥]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.
Similar papers in this journal
- High prevalence of long-term psychophysical olfactory dysfunction in patients with COVID-19 97%
- Persisting Chemosensory Impairments in 366 Healthcare Workers Following COVID-19: An 11-Month Follow-up 96%
- Chemosensory dysfunctions induced by COVID-19 can persist up to 7 months: A study of over 700 healthcare workers 95%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Diagnostic Performance and Characteristics of Anterior Nasal Collection for the SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Test: A Prospective Study in Japan 93%
- COMPARISON OF sPLA2-IIA PERFORMANCE WITH HIGH-SENSITIVE CRP, NEUTROPHIL PERCENTAGE, PCT AND LACTATE TO IDENTIFY BACTERIAL INFECTION: A PROSPECTIVE STUDY 92%
- Reduced Olfactory Bulb Volume Accompanies Smelling Dysfunction After Mild SARS-CoV-2 Infection: The Hamburg City Health Study COVID Program 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Retrospective and prospective studies evaluating the performance of the SARS-Cov-2 “AQ+ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test” from InTec on symptomatic and non-symptomatic patients 94%
- Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen diagnostic tests for saliva samples 91%
- High-sensitive detection and quantitation of thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) from capillary/fingerstick and venepuncture whole-blood using fluorescence-based rapid lateral flow Immunoassay (LFIA) 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Investigating sensitivity of nasal or throat (ISNOT): A combination of both swabs increases sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests 94%
- Detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection in gargle, spit and sputum specimens 93%
- Evaluation of flow cytometry for cell count and detection of bacteria in biological fluids. 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.