SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Phantosmia in Parkinson's Disease: A Systematic Review of the Phenomenology of Olfactory Hallucinations.

Neurol Int · 2023-12-22

DOI: 10.3390/neurolint16010002PMID: 38251050

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

Olfactory dysfunction is a prevalent non-motor symptom in Parkinson's disease (PD), affecting approximately 65-90% of subjects. PD patients may also report odor perception in the absence of any external source, often referred to as olfactory hallucinations (OHs) or phantosmia. This study aims to explore the current understanding of OHs in PD and offer a comprehensive overview of their prevalence and characteristics. We conducted a systematic search of the literature published on PubMed from inception to July 2023 regarding OHs in PD, following PRISMA guidelines. From the 2875 studies identified through database searching, 29 studies fulfilled the necessary criteria and underwent data extraction. The frequency of OHs in PD patients varies widely, ranging from 0.5% to 18.2%, with female prevalence ranging from 36% to 75% of the patients. Olfactory experiences may vary widely, ranging from pleasant scents to unpleasant odors. Several studies have indicated the concurrent presence of other types of hallucinations alongside phantosmia, especially visual and auditory hallucinations. OHs in PD are a type of hallucination that has been largely overlooked. To gain a deeper understanding of OHs in PD patients, the next crucial step should involve the development and validation of a dedicated questionnaire.

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.