xRead - Olfactory Disorders (September 2023)

20426984, 2022, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/alr.22929, Wiley Online Library on [04/09/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

524

INTERNATIONAL CONSENSUS ON OLFACTION

TABLE VIII.9 (Continued)

Normative data available

Reliability coeffi cent

Commercially available Comments

Estimated test duration

Test name and author/s

No. of odors or items

Testtype

Paediatric

< 3minutes

Limited

NR

A test for 6- to 17-year-old children based on both an odor ID test and an ascending method of limits threshold test using T&T olfactometer protocol (initial detection, then recognition) Dysfunction defined by 10th percentile for both tests ID: normal for 6- to 11-year-olds 4/6 and for 12- to 17-year-olds 5/6 For threshold: 2/6 Child required to name each of 7 odors without cues or response alternatives

ID: 0.83 Thresh

ID DT

ID: 6 DT: 6 Concent

Barcelona Olfactory Test Mariño-Sánchez et al, 2020 1230

old: 0.73

Kradeo Odor

ID

7

NR

< 10minutes

No

No

Identification Test

Concheiro Credit given to alternative names (eg, Jasmine could be identified as “perfume” or “flowers” and mint as “chewing gum” or “toothpaste” Calculated the percentage performance for each stimulus in 96 patients, 20 infected with SARS-CoV-2 Medians did not differ between these 2 groups B-SIT = Brief Smell Identification Test; DISC = discrimination; DT = detection threshold; ID = identification; NR = not reported; NIH = National Institutes of Health;OF = olfactory function; SS = Sniffin’ Sticks; T&T = Toyoda and Takagi; UPSIT R = University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test. All tests are a level of evidence of 5. Guisan et al, 2012 1231

Suprathreshold olfactory tests Odor identification tests

not smell, such as many elderly. Odor identification tests tap the full range of olfactory deficits and all levels of the nervous system involved in olfactory processing. Their pri mary limitation is that some odorants are culture-specific, requiring different versions of tests for different cultures. Although generally well correlated with other types of olfactory tests, notably threshold tests, for some diseases such as schizophrenia they are particularly sensitive to semantic processes that impact the ability to describe their sensations. 1100 Odor discrimination tests In classical psychophysics, odor discrimination is defined as resolving power along a stimulus concentration contin uum, reflecting the minimal increase needed to perceive a difference from a given odorant concentration. 1101 Acom mon index of this process is termed a just noticeable dif ference (or ΔS, also known as a Weber ratio), a value that is generally, but not completely, consistent among a range

As is apparent from Tables VIII.6–9, the most widely used clinical olfactory tests involve odor identification. Such tests have gained wide acceptance given that they are gen erally practical, reliable, easy to perform, economic of time and personnel, correlate with other types of tests, and, for individuals with no or minor smell loss, are the most enjoyable to take. Some are self-administered and can be sent to patients through the mail. Most are forced-choice, ie, require indication of a specific odorant quality from a list of alternatives, although some include a “no odor” alternative. The latter makes it impossible to establish a likelihood of malingering based on improbable response probabilities and to control for response biases (eg, ten dency to report the presence or absence of a smell inde pendent of actual sensitivity), and can mitigate attend ing to subtle aspects of presented stimuli. Nonetheless, such tests are more accepted by persons who truly can