Comparative Review of Olfactory Assessment Methods.

IF 0.7
Kush S Patel, Charles S Ebert, Keonho A Kong
{"title":"Comparative Review of Olfactory Assessment Methods.","authors":"Kush S Patel, Charles S Ebert, Keonho A Kong","doi":"10.1177/01455613251351770","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The measurement of olfaction in research has drawn significant attention due to its critical role in diagnosing and monitoring olfactory dysfunction (OD). Olfactory impairments are associated with various disorders, making accurate and reliable testing essential. Current assessment methods can be categorized into subjective and objective measures. Subjective tools provide information to evaluate an individual's perception and awareness of smells. Conversely, psychophysical (objective) measures provide quantifiable data that can detect olfactory impairments with precision but prove to be time-consuming and costly. The reliability of subjective assessments compared with objective methods remains a topic of ongoing investigation. There is a growing need for a comprehensive and efficient approach to measuring olfaction that balances accuracy, cost, and practicality.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This scholarly review examines and compares the outcomes of studies that have evaluated different olfactory assessment tools. Each study was chosen for its popularity among current otolaryngology providers. The effectiveness of these tests was analyzed based on sensitivity in detecting OD, ease of administration, and overall cost-efficiency.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Findings highlight the strengths and limitations of both subjective and objective methods. Subjective assessments, while convenient and cost-effective, exhibit variability in reliability due to individual differences in olfactory perception and cognitive biases. Objective tests provide precise and standardized results, but their practical application is limited due to cost, expertise, and duration of testing.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Current olfactory assessments present a trade-off between cost, reliability, and practicality. Objective methods are currently the gold standard, but their limitations necessitate the development of more accessible testing. Future research should focus on refining hybrid models that integrate subjective self-reports with validated objective measures to achieve a comprehensive and cost-effective approach to olfactory assessment.</p>","PeriodicalId":93984,"journal":{"name":"Ear, nose, & throat journal","volume":" ","pages":"1455613251351770"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ear, nose, & throat journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01455613251351770","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The measurement of olfaction in research has drawn significant attention due to its critical role in diagnosing and monitoring olfactory dysfunction (OD). Olfactory impairments are associated with various disorders, making accurate and reliable testing essential. Current assessment methods can be categorized into subjective and objective measures. Subjective tools provide information to evaluate an individual's perception and awareness of smells. Conversely, psychophysical (objective) measures provide quantifiable data that can detect olfactory impairments with precision but prove to be time-consuming and costly. The reliability of subjective assessments compared with objective methods remains a topic of ongoing investigation. There is a growing need for a comprehensive and efficient approach to measuring olfaction that balances accuracy, cost, and practicality.

Methods: This scholarly review examines and compares the outcomes of studies that have evaluated different olfactory assessment tools. Each study was chosen for its popularity among current otolaryngology providers. The effectiveness of these tests was analyzed based on sensitivity in detecting OD, ease of administration, and overall cost-efficiency.

Results: Findings highlight the strengths and limitations of both subjective and objective methods. Subjective assessments, while convenient and cost-effective, exhibit variability in reliability due to individual differences in olfactory perception and cognitive biases. Objective tests provide precise and standardized results, but their practical application is limited due to cost, expertise, and duration of testing.

Conclusions: Current olfactory assessments present a trade-off between cost, reliability, and practicality. Objective methods are currently the gold standard, but their limitations necessitate the development of more accessible testing. Future research should focus on refining hybrid models that integrate subjective self-reports with validated objective measures to achieve a comprehensive and cost-effective approach to olfactory assessment.

嗅觉评价方法的比较综述。
背景:嗅觉测量在诊断和监测嗅觉功能障碍(OD)中发挥着重要作用,在研究中受到广泛关注。嗅觉障碍与各种疾病有关,因此进行准确可靠的检测至关重要。目前的评价方法可分为主观评价和客观评价。主观工具提供信息来评估个人对气味的感知和意识。相反,心理物理(客观)测量提供了可量化的数据,可以精确地检测嗅觉障碍,但证明是耗时和昂贵的。与客观方法相比,主观评估的可靠性仍然是一个正在进行的研究课题。人们越来越需要一种全面而有效的方法来测量嗅觉,以平衡准确性、成本和实用性。方法:这篇学术综述检查并比较了评估不同嗅觉评估工具的研究结果。每项研究都是根据其在当前耳鼻喉科医生中的受欢迎程度来选择的。根据检测OD的灵敏度、管理的便利性和总体成本效益来分析这些测试的有效性。结果:研究结果突出了主观和客观方法的优势和局限性。主观评估虽然方便且具有成本效益,但由于嗅觉感知和认知偏差的个体差异,其可靠性存在差异。客观测试提供精确和标准化的结果,但由于成本、专业知识和测试时间的限制,其实际应用受到限制。结论:当前的嗅觉评估呈现出成本、可靠性和实用性之间的权衡。客观方法是目前的金标准,但其局限性需要开发更容易获得的测试。未来的研究应侧重于完善混合模型,将主观自我报告与经过验证的客观测量相结合,以实现全面和经济有效的嗅觉评估方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信