SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Does Olfactory Dysfunction Correlate with Disease Progression in Parkinson's Disease? A Systematic Review of the Current Literature.

Brain Sci · 2022-04-19

DOI: 10.3390/brainsci12050513PMID: 35624900

Open accessreview-article; Review; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

BackgroundLoss of olfaction is a well-established early feature of Parkinson's disease (PD). Although olfactory dysfunction has been widely described as a prodromal feature of PD in the literature, whether it can be considered a biomarker of PD progression is still a matter of debate.ObjectiveThe aim of this work is to define the possible relationship between the progression of olfactory dysfunction and other putative clinical hallmarks of PD over time, through a systematic review of the current literature.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of the literature on PubMed from inception to March 2022. We included only longitudinal studies conducted on patients with diagnosis of idiopathic PD who underwent olfactory function testing at baseline and repeated it at least once during follow-up.ResultsAmong 5740 records identified through database searching, nine longitudinal studies met full criteria and underwent data extraction.ConclusionsOlfaction seemed to decrease over time, albeit with a degree of fluctuation. Moreover, smell detection ability seems to deteriorate more rapidly in the early phase of disease, indicating a possible association with disease progression. More studies are needed to better understand the role of olfaction as a biomarker of PD progression over time.

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.