SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Testing Shortened Versions of Smell Tests to Screen for Hyposmia in Parkinson's Disease.

Mov Disord Clin Pract · 2020-03-21

DOI: 10.1002/mdc3.12928PMID: 32373655

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

BackgroundHyposmia is an early feature in neurodegenerative diseases, most notably Parkinson's disease (PD). Using abbreviated smell tests could provide a cost-effective means for large-scale hyposmia screening. It is unclear whether short smell tests can effectively detect hyposmia in patient populations.ObjectivesTo test the ability of short smell combinations to "prescreen" for probable hyposmia in people with PD and target administration of more extensive tests, such as the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test.MethodsWe assessed the screening performance of a short 4-smell combination previously derived from use of the 40-item University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test in healthy older people and its ability to detect hyposmia in a large cohort of PD patients.ResultsThe novel 4-smell combination included menthol, clove, onion, and orange and had a sensitivity of 87.1% (95% confidence interval, 84.9%-89.2%) and specificity of 69.7% (63.3%-75.5%) for detecting hyposmia in patients with PD. A different (also novel) 4-item combination developed using a data-driven approach in PD patients only achieved 81.3% (78.2%-84.4%) sensitivity for equivalent specificity.ConclusionsA short 4-smell combination derived from a healthy population demonstrated high sensitivity to detect those with hyposmia and PD.

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.