Four odorants for olfactory training are enough: a pilot study.

IF 1.9 3区 医学 Q2 OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-09-06 DOI:10.1007/s00405-024-08930-4
Nicole Power Guerra, Emely Kruschwitz, Dietmar Krautwurst, Thomas Hummel
{"title":"Four odorants for olfactory training are enough: a pilot study.","authors":"Nicole Power Guerra, Emely Kruschwitz, Dietmar Krautwurst, Thomas Hummel","doi":"10.1007/s00405-024-08930-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong> Olfactory training (OT) is commonly used for the treatment of olfactory disorders. Nevertheless, there is an ongoing debate about the most effective OT regimen. We aimed to compare the effects of OT with 7 items (rose, lemon, eucalyptus, cloves, stewed apple, balm, mint) to 4-item-OT (rose, lemon, eucalyptus, cloves) over 3 months. Methods: Participants were 40 patients with olfactory dysfunction receiving 4-item-OT or 7-item-OT and 60 gender- and age-matched individuals with normal sense of smell receiving no OT, 4-item-OT, or 7-item-OT. Before and after the OT we assessed n-butanol odor thresholds, discrimination, and identification (TDI score), additionalthresholds for (R)-(-)-carvone, β-damascenone, salicyclic acid benzylester, the degree of phantosmia and parosmia, cognitive function, and ratings of olfactory function. Results: In both patient groups, the TDI score increased with the use of OT, regardless of the number of odors used (p < 0.001; 3.48 ± 4.21 and lower than control groups). The clinically significant increase of 5.5 points in TDI score correlated with change of ratings of parosmia (r 0.62; p < 0.01) and with ratings of olfactory dysfunction (r = 0.51; p < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong> Concluding, OT over a 3-months period with 4 or 7 odors appears to produce similar results, although the sample size has to be considered.</p>","PeriodicalId":11952,"journal":{"name":"European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology","volume":" ","pages":"6445-6458"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11564259/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology","FirstCategoryId":"92","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-024-08930-4","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background:  Olfactory training (OT) is commonly used for the treatment of olfactory disorders. Nevertheless, there is an ongoing debate about the most effective OT regimen. We aimed to compare the effects of OT with 7 items (rose, lemon, eucalyptus, cloves, stewed apple, balm, mint) to 4-item-OT (rose, lemon, eucalyptus, cloves) over 3 months. Methods: Participants were 40 patients with olfactory dysfunction receiving 4-item-OT or 7-item-OT and 60 gender- and age-matched individuals with normal sense of smell receiving no OT, 4-item-OT, or 7-item-OT. Before and after the OT we assessed n-butanol odor thresholds, discrimination, and identification (TDI score), additionalthresholds for (R)-(-)-carvone, β-damascenone, salicyclic acid benzylester, the degree of phantosmia and parosmia, cognitive function, and ratings of olfactory function. Results: In both patient groups, the TDI score increased with the use of OT, regardless of the number of odors used (p < 0.001; 3.48 ± 4.21 and lower than control groups). The clinically significant increase of 5.5 points in TDI score correlated with change of ratings of parosmia (r 0.62; p < 0.01) and with ratings of olfactory dysfunction (r = 0.51; p < 0.05).

Conclusion:  Concluding, OT over a 3-months period with 4 or 7 odors appears to produce similar results, although the sample size has to be considered.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
用于嗅觉训练的四种气味就足够了:一项试验研究。
背景: 嗅觉训练(OT)通常用于治疗嗅觉障碍。然而,关于最有效的嗅觉训练方案仍存在争议。我们旨在比较 7 个项目(玫瑰、柠檬、桉树、丁香、炖苹果、香膏、薄荷)的 OT 与 4 个项目的 OT(玫瑰、柠檬、桉树、丁香)在 3 个月内的效果。研究方法参与者包括 40 名接受 4 项 OT 或 7 项 OT 的嗅觉功能障碍患者,以及 60 名性别和年龄匹配的嗅觉正常者,他们分别未接受任何 OT、4 项 OT 或 7 项 OT。在 OT 之前和之后,我们评估了正丁醇气味阈值、辨别力和识别力(TDI 评分),(R)-(-)-香芹酮、β-大马士革酮、水杨酸苄酯的额外阈值,幻嗅和副嗅的程度,认知功能以及嗅觉功能评分。结果显示在两组患者中,无论使用了多少种气味,TDI 分数都随着 OT 的使用而增加(p): 总之,在为期 3 个月的时间内使用 4 种或 7 种气味进行 OT 似乎能产生相似的效果,但必须考虑样本量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
7.70%
发文量
537
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: Official Journal of European Union of Medical Specialists – ORL Section and Board Official Journal of Confederation of European Oto-Rhino-Laryngology Head and Neck Surgery "European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology" publishes original clinical reports and clinically relevant experimental studies, as well as short communications presenting new results of special interest. With peer review by a respected international editorial board and prompt English-language publication, the journal provides rapid dissemination of information by authors from around the world. This particular feature makes it the journal of choice for readers who want to be informed about the continuing state of the art concerning basic sciences and the diagnosis and management of diseases of the head and neck on an international level. European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology was founded in 1864 as "Archiv für Ohrenheilkunde" by A. von Tröltsch, A. Politzer and H. Schwartze.
期刊最新文献
Correction: Endoscopic ear surgery in the treatment of chronic otitis media with atelectasis. Correction: A novel olfactory sorting task. Cochlear implantation in patients with inner ear schwannomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis of audiological outcomes. Efficacy and safety of middle turbinate surgery: a systematic review. Idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss after COVID-19 vaccination: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1