Which is superior, the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test or the threshold, Discrimination and Identification Test for testing human olfaction? A systematic review.

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q3 OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY Acta Oto-Laryngologica Pub Date : 2025-02-05 DOI:10.1080/00016489.2025.2458170
Magne Bech, Kathrine Kronberg Jakobsen, Ida Schlosshauer Brandt Andersen, Christian Korsgaard Pedersen, Mathias Waldemar Grønlund, Christian von Buchwald
{"title":"Which is superior, the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test or the threshold, Discrimination and Identification Test for testing human olfaction? A systematic review.","authors":"Magne Bech, Kathrine Kronberg Jakobsen, Ida Schlosshauer Brandt Andersen, Christian Korsgaard Pedersen, Mathias Waldemar Grønlund, Christian von Buchwald","doi":"10.1080/00016489.2025.2458170","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The awareness and prevalence of olfactory dysfunction (OD) has increased significantly in recent years, with the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic being a major catalyzer. Consequently, demands for reliable OD tests have also risen.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>This systematic review compares two commonly used tests for olfactory assessment: the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) and the Threshold, Discrimination, and Identification test (TDI). The correlation between UPSIT, TDI, and the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for olfaction is also examined.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>A systematic search of PubMed and EMBASE identified articles validating UPSIT or TDI and comparing these to self-reported OD <i>via</i> VAS. The outcome of interest was test-retest validity and correlation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The search identified 1536 studies, with nine meeting inclusion criteria. UPSIT showed a 'very strong' test-retest correlation, while TDI showed a 'strong' correlation. One study addressed VAS in relation to UPSIT and five for TDI. Correlation coefficients varied between VAS and TDI/UPSIT.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and significans: </strong>UPSIT and TDI exhibited strong to very strong test-retest reliability. Due to the limited number of studies, a meta-analysis was not feasible, and neither test was found to be superior in reliability. VAS did not correlate significantly with either TDI or UPSIT.</p>","PeriodicalId":6880,"journal":{"name":"Acta Oto-Laryngologica","volume":" ","pages":"1-4"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Oto-Laryngologica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00016489.2025.2458170","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The awareness and prevalence of olfactory dysfunction (OD) has increased significantly in recent years, with the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic being a major catalyzer. Consequently, demands for reliable OD tests have also risen.

Aims: This systematic review compares two commonly used tests for olfactory assessment: the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) and the Threshold, Discrimination, and Identification test (TDI). The correlation between UPSIT, TDI, and the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for olfaction is also examined.

Material and methods: A systematic search of PubMed and EMBASE identified articles validating UPSIT or TDI and comparing these to self-reported OD via VAS. The outcome of interest was test-retest validity and correlation.

Results: The search identified 1536 studies, with nine meeting inclusion criteria. UPSIT showed a 'very strong' test-retest correlation, while TDI showed a 'strong' correlation. One study addressed VAS in relation to UPSIT and five for TDI. Correlation coefficients varied between VAS and TDI/UPSIT.

Conclusions and significans: UPSIT and TDI exhibited strong to very strong test-retest reliability. Due to the limited number of studies, a meta-analysis was not feasible, and neither test was found to be superior in reliability. VAS did not correlate significantly with either TDI or UPSIT.

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
宾夕法尼亚大学嗅觉识别测试与阈值、辨别和识别测试在测试人类嗅觉方面孰优孰劣?系统综述。
背景:近年来,人们对嗅觉功能障碍(OD)的认识和发病率显著增加,SARS-CoV-2大流行是其中的一个主要催化剂。目的:本系统综述比较了两种常用的嗅觉评估测试:宾夕法尼亚大学嗅觉识别测试(UPSIT)和阈值、辨别和识别测试(TDI)。此外,还研究了 UPSIT、TDI 和嗅觉视觉模拟量表(VAS)之间的相关性:通过对 PubMed 和 EMBASE 进行系统检索,找到了验证 UPSIT 或 TDI 的文章,并将其与通过 VAS 自我报告的嗅觉减退进行了比较。结果:共检索到 1536 项研究,其中有 6 项研究的结果是有效的,有 2 项研究的结果是无效的,有 3 项研究的结果是无效的:搜索发现了 1536 项研究,其中 9 项符合纳入标准。UPSIT显示出 "非常强 "的测试-再测相关性,而TDI显示出 "强 "的相关性。一项研究针对的是与 UPSIT 相关的 VAS,五项研究针对的是 TDI。VAS 和 TDI/UPSIT 之间的相关系数各不相同:结论和意义:UPSIT 和 TDI 表现出较强至非常强的测试-再测可靠性。由于研究数量有限,荟萃分析并不可行,而且两种测试的可靠性都不高。VAS 与 TDI 或 UPSIT 均无明显相关性。
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
Acta Oto-Laryngologica
Acta Oto-Laryngologica 医学-耳鼻喉科学
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
99
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Acta Oto-Laryngologica is a truly international journal for translational otolaryngology and head- and neck surgery. The journal presents cutting-edge papers on clinical practice, clinical research and basic sciences. Acta also bridges the gap between clinical and basic research.
期刊最新文献
Which is superior, the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test or the threshold, Discrimination and Identification Test for testing human olfaction? A systematic review. Clinical Features and prognostic factors in pediatric deep neck infections: a retrospective study. Impact of nasal septum deviation on the sphenoid bone pneumatization: a retrospective computed tomography study. A trend of otologic diseases during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic period. Possible complications of frontal sinus fractures after conservative or surgical treatment: retrospective study.
×
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