Cargando…

Self-assessment of olfactory function using the “Sniffin’ Sticks”

BACKGROUND: A precise and reliable test of the olfactory function is indispensable for the diagnosis of the olfactory disorder (OD). Despite of this, in a clinical context, often there is no place in daily routine for time-consuming procedures. This study aimed to examine if the assessment of olfact...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mai, Yiling, Klockow, Marie, Haehner, Antje, Hummel, Thomas
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10313570/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36799976
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00405-023-07872-7
_version_ 1785067154961334272
author Mai, Yiling
Klockow, Marie
Haehner, Antje
Hummel, Thomas
author_facet Mai, Yiling
Klockow, Marie
Haehner, Antje
Hummel, Thomas
author_sort Mai, Yiling
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: A precise and reliable test of the olfactory function is indispensable for the diagnosis of the olfactory disorder (OD). Despite of this, in a clinical context, often there is no place in daily routine for time-consuming procedures. This study aimed to examine if the assessment of olfactory function using the “Sniffin’ Sticks” is suitable for self-assessment. METHODS: Participants comprised 84 healthy control subjects (HC) and 37 OD patients. The “Sniffin’ Sticks” test battery consisting of odor threshold (T), discrimination (D) and identification (I) tests was used for self- and assisted assessments. To save time, we applied the 8-item wide step version of the T test and the 8-item D test, whereas the I task remained the same as the original version. The whole test included two sessions, with each session comprising a self-assessment part performed by the participants themselves, and an assisted-assessment part performed by the examiner. RESULTS: Sniffin’ Sticks self-assessment was efficient in distinguishing between self-reported HC subjects and OD patients (p’s < 0.01), and the scores did not differ significantly from the assisted-assessment (p’s > 0.05). In the self-administered I and TDI tests, there was a moderate to excellent test–retest reliability (ICC = 0.51–0.93, p’s < 0.01), and a strong to excellent correlation with the assisted assessment (r = 0.71–0.92, p’s < 0.01). However, the self-administered T and D tests only exhibited low to moderate test–retest reliability (ICC = 0.30–0.72, p’s < 0.05) and correlations with the assisted test (r = 0.31–0.62, p’s < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The Identification self-test is appropriate to be solely applied, and is therefore an easy-to-use alternative for olfactory screening in a larger segment of patients. The whole “Sniffin’ Sticks” self-test also shows good measurement properties and is therefore a suitable backup in clinical practice, but improvement is needed due to the simplified D and T self-test.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10313570
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-103135702023-07-02 Self-assessment of olfactory function using the “Sniffin’ Sticks” Mai, Yiling Klockow, Marie Haehner, Antje Hummel, Thomas Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Rhinology BACKGROUND: A precise and reliable test of the olfactory function is indispensable for the diagnosis of the olfactory disorder (OD). Despite of this, in a clinical context, often there is no place in daily routine for time-consuming procedures. This study aimed to examine if the assessment of olfactory function using the “Sniffin’ Sticks” is suitable for self-assessment. METHODS: Participants comprised 84 healthy control subjects (HC) and 37 OD patients. The “Sniffin’ Sticks” test battery consisting of odor threshold (T), discrimination (D) and identification (I) tests was used for self- and assisted assessments. To save time, we applied the 8-item wide step version of the T test and the 8-item D test, whereas the I task remained the same as the original version. The whole test included two sessions, with each session comprising a self-assessment part performed by the participants themselves, and an assisted-assessment part performed by the examiner. RESULTS: Sniffin’ Sticks self-assessment was efficient in distinguishing between self-reported HC subjects and OD patients (p’s < 0.01), and the scores did not differ significantly from the assisted-assessment (p’s > 0.05). In the self-administered I and TDI tests, there was a moderate to excellent test–retest reliability (ICC = 0.51–0.93, p’s < 0.01), and a strong to excellent correlation with the assisted assessment (r = 0.71–0.92, p’s < 0.01). However, the self-administered T and D tests only exhibited low to moderate test–retest reliability (ICC = 0.30–0.72, p’s < 0.05) and correlations with the assisted test (r = 0.31–0.62, p’s < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The Identification self-test is appropriate to be solely applied, and is therefore an easy-to-use alternative for olfactory screening in a larger segment of patients. The whole “Sniffin’ Sticks” self-test also shows good measurement properties and is therefore a suitable backup in clinical practice, but improvement is needed due to the simplified D and T self-test. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2023-02-17 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC10313570/ /pubmed/36799976 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00405-023-07872-7 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Rhinology
Mai, Yiling
Klockow, Marie
Haehner, Antje
Hummel, Thomas
Self-assessment of olfactory function using the “Sniffin’ Sticks”
title Self-assessment of olfactory function using the “Sniffin’ Sticks”
title_full Self-assessment of olfactory function using the “Sniffin’ Sticks”
title_fullStr Self-assessment of olfactory function using the “Sniffin’ Sticks”
title_full_unstemmed Self-assessment of olfactory function using the “Sniffin’ Sticks”
title_short Self-assessment of olfactory function using the “Sniffin’ Sticks”
title_sort self-assessment of olfactory function using the “sniffin’ sticks”
topic Rhinology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10313570/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36799976
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00405-023-07872-7
work_keys_str_mv AT maiyiling selfassessmentofolfactoryfunctionusingthesniffinsticks
AT klockowmarie selfassessmentofolfactoryfunctionusingthesniffinsticks
AT haehnerantje selfassessmentofolfactoryfunctionusingthesniffinsticks
AT hummelthomas selfassessmentofolfactoryfunctionusingthesniffinsticks