-
Minerva Pediatrics Apr 2023Shortly after birth, neonates are exposed to several painful medical procedures, such as newborn metabolic screening, vaccination and venipuncture, without proper...
INTRODUCTION
Shortly after birth, neonates are exposed to several painful medical procedures, such as newborn metabolic screening, vaccination and venipuncture, without proper management of pain. Unpleasant experiences during the neonatal period are proven to be associated with negative long-term consequences. Non-pharmacological interventions have been studied, although rarely administered and seldom documented. The aim of this systematic review was to assess non-pharmacological approaches to neonatal pain during diagnostic and treatment procedures.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
Extensive literature research to access randomized controlled trials on non-pharmacological pain management in neonates was performed in MEDLINE (through PubMed), Scopus and Web of Science from October 2011 to September 2021. First analysis included all article titles and abstracts screening to identify relevant studies, and second analysis included a full-text screening of previously selected studies. Eligibility was assessed independently by two authors, and disagreements were resolved by discussion and consensus. In the end, 19 published studies were included, representing a total of 1930 newborns. Main outcome, neonatal pain, was assessed by different neonatal pain evaluation scales.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Non-pharmacological interventions including sucrose/glucose solutions, non-nutritive sucking, breastfeeding, olfactive stimulus, auditory stimulus and sensory stimulus (skin-to-skin care, kangaroo/maternal holding, heat, therapeutic massage, swaddling/facilitated tucking and acupressure) showed decreased behavioral and physiologic pain responses.
CONCLUSIONS
Evidence suggests non-pharmacological approaches are safe, effective and can be easily applied in daily practice. There is the need for continued research on non-pharmacological interventions on neonatal pain to help healthcare providers build a tailored pain treatment plan for neonates submitted to procedural pain.
Topics: Humans; Punctures; Pain; Pain Management; Phlebotomy; Vaccination
PubMed: 35726765
DOI: 10.23736/S2724-5276.22.06871-9 -
International Journal of Infectious... Apr 2022Chemosensory disorders associated with COVID-19 have been widely discussed during the pandemic. We performed a meta-analysis to assess the risk factors for olfactory and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Chemosensory disorders associated with COVID-19 have been widely discussed during the pandemic. We performed a meta-analysis to assess the risk factors for olfactory and gustatory dysfunction in patients with COVID-19.
METHODS
Three databases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library) were searched for studies published between December 1, 2019, and August 31, 2021. We selected random-effects model or fixed-effects model to pool data based on heterogeneity. The results were reported as odds ratios (ORs) or standardized mean differences (SMDs) and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was reported as I.
RESULTS
Twenty-six studies with a total of 13,813 patients were included. The pooled data indicated that sex (OR 1.47; 95% CI 0.93-2.31), age (SMD -5.80; 95% CI -13.35 to 1.75), smoking (OR 2.04; 95% CI 0.72-5.79), and comorbidity (OR 1.21; 95% CI 0.58-2.53) of patients with COVID-19 had no effect on gustatory dysfunction. Olfactory dysfunction was more likely to occur in older patients with COVID-19 (SMD, -5.22; 95% CI, -8.28 to -2.16). Patients with COVID-19 with nasal congestion (OR 3.41; 95% CI 2.30-5.06) and rhinorrhea (OR 2.35; 95% CI 1.60-3.45) were more prone to olfactory dysfunction.
CONCLUSION
These findings emphasize that older patients with COVID-19 are more likely to experience olfactory dysfunction. Symptoms of nasal congestion and rhinorrhea may affect the recognition of olfactory dysfunction.
Topics: Aged; COVID-19; Humans; Olfaction Disorders; Prevalence; SARS-CoV-2; Taste Disorders
PubMed: 35134561
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijid.2022.02.004 -
Frontiers in Psychiatry 2017Research has demonstrated a reduction in olfactory functioning in patients with schizophrenia. This research has led to examination of olfactory functioning in other... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Research has demonstrated a reduction in olfactory functioning in patients with schizophrenia. This research has led to examination of olfactory functioning in other mental disorders, such as depression. There is a great deal of variation in the results generated from such research, and it remains unclear as to how olfactory functioning is associated with or impacted by depression.
METHOD
The current review examined the literature in accordance with PRISMA guidelines in order to generate a better understanding of this relationship and to identify if and what aspects of olfactory processing are altered. Through examination of the available literature from the databases PubMed, Ovid Medline, CINAL, and PsychINFO, 15 manuscripts were selected to determine if there was a difference in olfactory processing-specifically central and peripheral processing-between depressed individuals and non-depressed controls.
RESULTS
The comparison of the 15 studies showed that the majority of studies (9/15, 60%) found a difference in overall olfactory functioning between depressed individuals and non-depressed controls ( < 0.05).
LIMITATIONS
There is still a lack of definitive conclusions due to variation of which olfactory process was altered.
CONCLUSION
Given the differences in the methodology and design of these studies, a possible solution that could eliminate the lack of clarity and reduce variation would be to adhere to a single, thorough methodology that examines and separates central and peripheral olfactory processing. Future research employing a uniform and validated methodology could provide more definitive conclusions as to how and if olfactory functioning is related depression.
PubMed: 29033860
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2017.00190 -
International Forum of Allergy &... Feb 2023While various sinus computed tomography (CT) scoring systems have been proposed and used in the literature, no single system has been identified as superior. The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
While various sinus computed tomography (CT) scoring systems have been proposed and used in the literature, no single system has been identified as superior. The strength of associations between CT scoring systems and measures of olfaction also remains unclear.
METHODS
A systematic review of PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies that reported both CT scores and measures of olfaction in a cross-sectional manner were included.
RESULTS
A total of 37 studies were eligible for meta-analysis. Of 8035 patients with chronic rhinosinusitis, 55.6% were male patients and 53.2% had chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. Analysis by meta-regression was performed of Lund-Mackay (LM) versus Smell Identification Test-40 (SIT-40; 12 studies), Brief Smell Identification Test (BSIT; 10 studies), Sniffin' Sticks (SS; 10 studies), and Toyota & Takagi (T&T) olfactometry (four studies). A significant moderate association was found between LM and SIT-40 (R = 0.612, p < 0.001) and LM and SS (R = 0.612, p < 0.001). An association between LM and BSIT approached significance (R = 0.461, p = 0.054). No significant associations were noted between LM and T&T olfactometry and between LM and SS when stratified by nasal polyp status.
CONCLUSION
There is a significant moderate association of current CT scoring systems to SIT-40 and SS. Further research should focus on associations of objective measures of olfaction to CT scores of the nasal cavity, sinuses, and olfactory cleft, as well as other disease markers.
Topics: Humans; Male; Female; Rhinitis; Cross-Sectional Studies; Paranasal Sinuses; Sinusitis; Smell; Chronic Disease; Nasal Polyps; Tomography, X-Ray Computed; Olfaction Disorders
PubMed: 35771157
DOI: 10.1002/alr.23053 -
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Sep 2017Olfactory and gustatory dysfunctions have been described in different psychiatric disorders. Several studies have found gustatory and olfactory function change in... (Review)
Review
Olfactory and gustatory dysfunctions have been described in different psychiatric disorders. Several studies have found gustatory and olfactory function change in bipolar disorders with various results. The aim of this study is to have a systematic review of studies evaluating gustatory and olfactory function in bipolar disorders. After a systematic search, 15 studies on olfaction and 5 studies on taste were included in this review. The UPSIT (University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test) and Sniffin' Sticks were the most widely used tests to evaluate smell. Some studies on olfaction described dysfunctions in smell identification as potential markers for bipolar disorders. Moreover, olfactory acuity was associated with psychosocial and cognitive performances. For taste, only few studies used standardized tests to evaluate gustation. These studies showed that patients with Bipolar disorders had more gustatory dysfunction compared to controls, and to non-bipolar depressed patients.
Topics: Bipolar Disorder; Humans; Olfaction Disorders; Taste Perception
PubMed: 28506924
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.05.009 -
European Archives of... Mar 2022Olfaction impairment occurs in about 90% of patients with Parkinson's disease. The Sniffin Sticks Test is a widely used instrument to measure olfactory performance and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Olfaction impairment occurs in about 90% of patients with Parkinson's disease. The Sniffin Sticks Test is a widely used instrument to measure olfactory performance and is divided into three subtests that assess olfactory threshold, discrimination and identification. However, cultural and socioeconomic differences can influence test performance.
OBJECTIVES
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the existent data about Sniffin Sticks Test performance of Parkinson's disease patients and healthy controls in different countries and investigated if there are other cofactors which could influence the olfactory test results. A subgroup analysis by country was performed as well as a meta-regression using age, gender and air pollution as covariates.
RESULTS
Four hundred and thirty studies were found and 66 articles were included in the meta-analysis. Parkinson's disease patients showed significantly lower scores on the Sniffin Sticks Test and all its subtests than healthy controls. Overall, the heterogeneity among studies was moderate to high as well as the intra-country heterogeneity. The subgroup analysis, stratifying by country, maintained a high residual heterogeneity.
CONCLUSION
The meta-regression showed a significant correlation with age and air pollution in a few subtests. A high heterogeneity was found among studies which was not significantly decreased after subgroup analysis by country. This fact signalizes that maybe cultural influence has a small impact on the Sniffin Sticks Test results. Age and air pollution have influence in a few olfactory subtests.
Topics: Disease Progression; Humans; Hyperplasia; Odorants; Olfaction Disorders; Parkinson Disease; Smell
PubMed: 34319482
DOI: 10.1007/s00405-021-06970-8 -
Balkan Medical Journal Jan 2019This report produces a bibliographic study of psychophysical tests proposed clinical assessments of retronasal olfaction.
BACKGROUND
This report produces a bibliographic study of psychophysical tests proposed clinical assessments of retronasal olfaction.
AIMS
We review how these tests can be utilized and discuss their methodological properties.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review.
METHODS
We undertook a systematic literature review investigating the retronasal olfaction test methods. PubMed, the free online MEDLINE database on biomedical sciences, was searched for the period from 1984 to 2015 using the following relevant key phrases: “retronasal olfaction”, “orthonasal olfaction”, “olfaction disorders”, and “olfaction test”. For each of the selected titles cited in this study, the full manuscript was read and analyzed by each of the three authors of this paper independently before collaborative discussion for summation and analytical reporting. Two reviewers independently read the abstracts and full texts and categorised them into one of three subgroups as follow, suitable, not-suitable, and unsure. Then they cross-checked the results, and a third reviewer decided assigned the group “unsure” to either the suitable group or the not-suitable group. Fifty eight studies revealed as suitable for review by two authors whereas 13 found not suitable for review. The total amount of 60 uncertain (unsure) or differently categorized articles were further examined by the third author which resulted in 41 approvals and 19 rejections. Hence 99 approved articles passed the next step. Exclusion criteria were reviews, case reports, animal studies, and the articles of which methodology was a lack of olfaction tests. By this way excluded 69 papers, and finally, 30 original human research articles were taken as the data.
RESULTS
The study found that the three most widely used and accepted retronasal olfaction test methods are the retronasal olfaction test, the candy smell test and odorant presentation containers. All of the three psychophysical retronasal olfaction tests were combined with orthonasal tests in clinical use to examine and understand the smell function of the patient completely. There were two limitations concerning testing: “the lack concentrations and doses of test materials” and “performing measurements within the supra-threshold zone”.
CONCLUSION
The appropriate test agents and optimal concentrations for the retronasal olfaction tests remain unclear and emerge as limitations of the retronasal olfaction test technique. The first step to overcoming these limitations will probably require identification of retronasal olfaction thresholds. Once these are determined, the concept of retronasal olfaction and its testing methods may be thoroughly reviewed.
Topics: Diagnostic Techniques, Neurological; Humans; Nasal Cavity; Olfaction Disorders; Olfactory Bulb; Smell
PubMed: 30264731
DOI: 10.4274/balkanmedj.2018.0052 -
Allergy & Rhinology (Providence, R.I.) 2021Anosmia and hyposmia have many etiologies, including trauma, chronic sinusitis, neoplasms, and respiratory viral infections such as rhinovirus and SARS-CoV-2. We aimed... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Anosmia and hyposmia have many etiologies, including trauma, chronic sinusitis, neoplasms, and respiratory viral infections such as rhinovirus and SARS-CoV-2. We aimed to systematically review the literature on the diagnostic evaluation of anosmia/hyposmia.
METHODS
PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched for articles published since January 1990 using terms combined with Medical Subject Headings (MeSH). We included articles evaluating diagnostic modalities for anosmia, written in the English language, used original data, and had two or more patients.
RESULTS
A total of 2065 unique titles were returned upon the initial search. Of these, 226 abstracts were examined, yielding 27 full-text articles meeting inclusion criteria (Level of evidence ranging from 1 to 4; most level 2). The studies included a total of 13,577 patients. The most utilized diagnostic tools were orthonasal smell tests (such as the Sniffin' Sticks and the UPSIT, along with validated abridged smell tests). Though various imaging modalities (including MRI and CT) were frequently mentioned in the workup of olfactory dysfunction, routine imaging was not used to primarily diagnose smell loss.
CONCLUSION
The literature includes several studies on validity and reliability for various smell tests in diagnosing anosmia. Along with a thorough history and physical, validated orthonasal smell tests should be part of the workup of the patient with suspected olfactory dysfunction. The most widely studied modality was MRI, but criteria for the timing and sequence of imaging modalities was heterogenous.
PubMed: 34285823
DOI: 10.1177/21526567211026568 -
Rhinology Apr 2021Although neglected by science for a long time, the sense of olfaction has received increasing attention from research areas including psychology, neuroscience, clinical...
PURPOSE
Although neglected by science for a long time, the sense of olfaction has received increasing attention from research areas including psychology, neuroscience, clinical medicine and nutrition. With the rise of psychophysical and neuroimaging re- search into olfaction, psychometric tools (e.g. questionnaires and scales) are the basis for the quantitative exploration of inter-in- dividual variability regarding olfactory related responses. The current systematic review is to summarize existing olfaction related questionnaires and/or scales.
METHODS
Peer-reviewed literature on scales and questionnaires related to perception of odors were searched from online databa- ses (PubMed, Web of Science and PsycINFO). Twenty-one articles that meet the following criteria were included in the review: "human species", "physical odor stimuli" and "describing the original development of the tool" and "specific focus on olfaction or odor related responses or behaviors". The psychometric properties, advantages and possible disadvantages were discussed.
RESULTS
Existing psychometric measures focus on various aspects of olfactory related responses and behaviors, including af- fective experiences of odor perception, awareness and attitude towards olfaction, olfactory function and the quality of life change due to olfactory dysfunction, and the ability to create vivid mental odor images. While most of them have been tested to have good reliability and validity, some were relatively time-consuming due to the number of questionnaire items. Besides, although many measures have been used in clinical populations, few have provided information on the predictive validity regarding effecti- veness of clinical intervention on changes of certain responses or behaviors.
SUMMARY
The current review provides an overview of olfactory related questionnaires and scales, highlighting the emotional and affective impact of olfaction and the impact on quality of life due to olfactory dysfunction. With growing interest in olfaction as an important sense, the development and use of psychometrically sound measurements in conjunction with objective assess- ments will advance our understanding of human olfaction and olfactory dysfunction. The review provides a guide for researchers and clinicians alike to select olfactory scales suitable for olfactory research with different experimental purposes and specific samples.
Topics: Humans; Odorants; Olfactory Perception; Quality of Life; Reproducibility of Results; Smell; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 33078172
DOI: 10.4193/Rhin20.291 -
Child Neuropsychology : a Journal on... Jan 2017Olfactory function is a well-known early biomarker for neurodegeneration and neural functioning in the adult population, being supported by a number of brain structures... (Review)
Review
Olfactory function is a well-known early biomarker for neurodegeneration and neural functioning in the adult population, being supported by a number of brain structures that could be dysfunctioning in neurodegenerative processes. Evidence has suggested that atypical sensory and, particularly, olfactory processing is present in several neurodevelopmental conditions, including autism spectrum disorders (ASDs). In this paper, we present data obtained by a systematic literature review, conducted according to PRISMA guidelines, regarding the possible association between olfaction and ASDs, and analyze them critically in order to evaluate the occurrence of olfactory impairment in ASDs, as well as the possible usefulness of olfactory evaluation in such conditions. The results obtained in this analysis suggested a possible involvement of olfactory impairment in ASDs, underlining the importance of olfactory evaluation in the clinical assessment of ASDs. This assessment could be potentially included as a complementary evaluation in the diagnostic protocol of the condition. Methods for study selection and inclusion criteria were specified in advance and documented in PROSPERO protocol #CRD42014013939.
Topics: Autism Spectrum Disorder; Child Development Disorders, Pervasive; Humans; Smell
PubMed: 26340690
DOI: 10.1080/09297049.2015.1081678