SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Odor Identification Test in Idiopathic REM-Behavior Disorder and Parkinson's Disease in China.

PLoS One · 2016-08-02

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0160199PMID: 27483429

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

BackgroundOlfactory dysfunction is common in Parkinson's disease (PD) and idiopathic rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder (iRBD), which is a risk factor in the development of PD. However, a few studies have conflicting results when comparing dysosmia in the patients with iRBD and PD. There is no study investigating the olfactory function in Chinese patients with iRBD. Additionally, the Sniffin' Sticks screening 12 test (SS-12) contains several odors that are not familiar to people in different cultures.MethodsOdor identification was evaluated in iRBD patients (n = 54), PD patients (n = 54) and healthy controls (n = 54). With the identification data, a brief odor identification test was established and then validated in other subjects.ResultsOdor identification scores in iRBD patients were significantly higher than those in PD patients (PConclusionsOlfaction is more impaired in PD patients than in iRBD patients, possibly due to the heterogeneity of iRBD patients. The Sniffin' Sticks could be a useful tool for differentiating iRBD patients from the healthy population, and it could be useful for screening people at high-risk of PD in China, especially when combined with polysomnography. To reduce the expense and time required for the Sniffin' Sticks test, this study shows that a brief test is feasible.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.