SMELL-RS: A Self-administered, Digital Test for Olfactory Dysfunction that is Rapid, Reliable, and Accurate
Hsieh, J. W.; Dougherty, M.; Poulopoulou, A.; Blidariu, D.; Senn, P.; Hopper, R.; Patel, D.; Maggioni, E.; Obrist, M.; Vosshall, L. B.; Keller, A.; Landis, B.
Show abstract
Background: Smell testing is increasingly recognized as essential in rhinology practice but remains underutilized because of time constraints and limited clinical resources. This study aimed to evaluate the performance (test-retest reliability, accuracy and test completion time) of a self-administered, digital version of SMELL-RS, a non-semantic test of olfactory resolution (SMELL-R) and sensitivity (SMELL-S). Methodology: We performed a test-retest reliability study in a tertiary care facility. We enrolled 100 subjects with and without smell dysfunction. The primary outcome measures were two replicates of olfactory test scores (SMELL-RS composite score, SMELL-R score, SMELL-S score). The secondary outcome measures were Sniffin Sticks score, test completion time, patient demographics, and other clinical characteristics (clinical symptoms, etiologies). Results: The SMELL-RS composite score was reliable (ICC=0.71; p<0.0001) and correlated with the Sniffin Sticks composite score (r=0.68; p<0.0001). Different etiologies have different magnitudes of smell loss as revealed by the SMELL-RS score. SMELL-S reduces misdiagnosis associated with Sniffin Sticks threshold tests. The average completion time of the olfactory resolution test (SMELL-R) was on average 5.9 minutes (SD=1.9), while the average completion time of the olfactory sensitivity test (SMELL-S) was 5.5 minutes (SD=2.7). This is two to three times faster than the corresponding Sniffin Sticks tests. Conclusions: SMELL-RS is a rapid, fully automated, reliable, and accurate olfactory test suitable for self-administration in a clinical setting.
Matching journals
The top 1 journal accounts 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%
- Objective sensory testing methods reveal a higher prevalence of olfactory loss in COVID-19 positive patients compared to subjective methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Automatic Identification of Tinnitus Malingering Based on Overt and Covert Behavioral Responses During Psychoacoustic Testing 89%
- Identification of acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease using simple patient-reported symptoms and cough feature analysis: A diagnostic agreement study 87%
- A Deep Learning Based Smartphone Application for Early Detection of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Using Endoscopic Images 87%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- The antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 increases over 5 months in patients with anosmia/dysgeusia 90%
- A longitudinal seroprevalence study in a large cohort of working adults reveals that neutralising SARS-CoV-2 RBD-specific antibodies persist for at least six months independent of the severity of symptoms 88%
- Effectiveness of bimodal neuromodulation for tinnitus treatment in a real-world clinical setting in United States: A retrospective chart review 88%
Similar papers in this journal
- Olfactory Training Efficiency In Post-COVID-19 Persistent Olfactory Disorders 96%
- Diagnostic accuracy of a novel SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic test from standardized self-collected anterior nasal swabs 93%
- Aerodigestoscopy (ADS): A retrospective examination of the feasibility, safety, and comfort of a new procedure for the evaluation of physiological disorders of the aerodigestive tract 90%
"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.