-
European Eating Disorders Review : the... Sep 2022The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between sensory processing and a broad range of eating behaviours across the lifespan. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between sensory processing and a broad range of eating behaviours across the lifespan.
METHODS
Five electronic databases of published and unpublished quantitative studies were systematically searched, evaluated for risk of bias and synthesised according to identified eating outcomes.
RESULTS
Across 25 studies, there was consistent evidence of a relationship between sensory processing and a range of eating behaviours. There was early evidence for the particular role of taste/smell sensitivities, as well as hypersensitivities, although future research is needed looking at different sensory patterns and modalities. There was also tentative evidence to suggest this relationship extends across development.
DISCUSSION
Study findings are discussed in relation to implications for sensory-based eating and feeding interventions and the development of eating disorders. Methodological and conceptual limitations are discussed and suggestions for future research are made to address these limitations. A broader investigation of multi-sensory issues and clearly defined eating behaviours, including disordered eating in clinically diagnosed samples, will allow for a more comprehensive and robust understanding of the relationship between sensory processing and eating behaviours in autism.
Topics: Autistic Disorder; Feeding Behavior; Feeding and Eating Disorders; Humans; Perception; Taste
PubMed: 35737818
DOI: 10.1002/erv.2920 -
Brain Sciences Apr 2022Loss 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... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Loss 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.
OBJECTIVE
The 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.
METHODS
We 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.
RESULTS
Among 5740 records identified through database searching, nine longitudinal studies met full criteria and underwent data extraction.
CONCLUSIONS
Olfaction 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.
PubMed: 35624900
DOI: 10.3390/brainsci12050513 -
Frontiers in Psychology 2022Objective tests of olfaction are widely available to aid in the assessment of olfaction. Their clearest role is in the characterization of olfactory changes, either...
Objective tests of olfaction are widely available to aid in the assessment of olfaction. Their clearest role is in the characterization of olfactory changes, either reported by or suspected in a patient. There is a rapidly growing literature concerned with the association of olfactory changes with certain neuropsychiatric conditions and the use of olfactory testing to supplement conventional assessments in clinical and research practice is evolving. Neural pathways important for olfactory processing overlap extensively with pathways important for cognitive functioning, and especially those important for executive functioning, many of which are concentrated in the frontal lobes. Previous work has identified associations between performance on certain olfactory tests (most frequently olfactory identification) and executive functioning and behavioral measures (e.g. of impulsivity). More recently, similar associations have also been identified in non-clinical samples, raising new questions as to the utility of olfactory test scores as proxy measures for non-olfactory phenomena. In this systemic review, we sought to identify studies, both clinical and non-clinical, that investigated the associations of olfaction with performance on tasks sensitive to frontal lobe functioning. Our search criteria led to the identification of 70 studies published in English. We examined in detail and tabulated the data from these studies, highlighted each study's key findings, and critically evaluated these studies. We use the results of this review to reflect on some of the current and future challenges concerning the use of olfactory testing in clinical neuropsychiatric practice and research and speculate on the potential benefits of administering phonemic fluency in combination with olfactory testing to enhance its predictive value.
PubMed: 35615205
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.871391 -
JMIR MHealth and UHealth Jun 2022Mobile health (mHealth) apps have facilitated symptom monitoring of COVID-19 symptoms globally and have been used to share data with health care professionals and...
BACKGROUND
Mobile health (mHealth) apps have facilitated symptom monitoring of COVID-19 symptoms globally and have been used to share data with health care professionals and support disease prediction, prevention, management, diagnostics, and improvements in treatments and patient education.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this review is to evaluate the quality and functionality of COVID-19 mHealth apps that support tracking acute and long-term symptoms of COVID-19.
METHODS
We systematically reviewed commercially available mHealth apps for COVID-19 symptom monitoring by searching Google Play and Apple iTunes using search terms such as "COVID-19," "Coronavirus," and "COVID-19 and symptoms." All apps underwent three rounds of screening. The final apps were independently assessed using the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS), an informatics functionality scoring system, and the Center for Disease Control and World Health Organization symptom guidelines. The MARS is a 19-item standardized tool to evaluate the quality of mHealth apps on engagement, functionality, aesthetics, and information quality. Functionality was quantified across the following criteria: inform, instruct, record (collect, share, evaluate, and intervene), display, guide, remind or alert, and communicate. Interrater reliability between the reviewers was calculated.
RESULTS
A total of 1017 mobile apps were reviewed, and 20 (2%) met the inclusion criteria. The majority of the 20 included apps (n=18, 90%) were designed to track acute COVID-19 symptoms, and only 2 (10%) addressed long-term symptoms. Overall, the apps scored high on quality, with an overall MARS rating of 3.89 out of 5, and the highest domain score for functionality (4.2). The most common functionality among all apps was the instruct function (n=19, 95%). The most common symptoms included in the apps for tracking were fever and dry cough (n=18, 90%), aches and pains (n=17, 85%), difficulty breathing (n=17, 85%), tiredness, sore throat, headache, loss of taste or smell (n=16, 80%), and diarrhea (n=15, 75%). Only 2 (10%) apps specifically tracked long-term symptoms of COVID-19. The top 4 rated apps overall were state-specific apps developed and deployed for public use.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, mHealth apps designed to monitor symptoms of COVID-19 were of high quality, but the majority of apps focused almost exclusively on acute symptoms. Future apps should also incorporate monitoring long-term symptoms of COVID-19 and evidence-based educational materials; they should also include a feature that would allow patients to communicate their symptoms to specific caregivers or their own health care team. App developers should also follow updated technical and clinical guidelines from the Center for Disease Control and the World Health Organization.
Topics: COVID-19; Health Personnel; Humans; Mobile Applications; Reproducibility of Results; Telemedicine
PubMed: 35609313
DOI: 10.2196/36065 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2022COVID-19 illness is highly variable, ranging from infection with no symptoms through to pneumonia and life-threatening consequences. Symptoms such as fever, cough, or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
COVID-19 illness is highly variable, ranging from infection with no symptoms through to pneumonia and life-threatening consequences. Symptoms such as fever, cough, or loss of sense of smell (anosmia) or taste (ageusia), can help flag early on if the disease is present. Such information could be used either to rule out COVID-19 disease, or to identify people who need to go for COVID-19 diagnostic tests. This is the second update of this review, which was first published in 2020.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the diagnostic accuracy of signs and symptoms to determine if a person presenting in primary care or to hospital outpatient settings, such as the emergency department or dedicated COVID-19 clinics, has COVID-19.
SEARCH METHODS
We undertook electronic searches up to 10 June 2021 in the University of Bern living search database. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We used artificial intelligence text analysis to conduct an initial classification of documents. We did not apply any language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Studies were eligible if they included people with clinically suspected COVID-19, or recruited known cases with COVID-19 and also controls without COVID-19 from a single-gate cohort. Studies were eligible when they recruited people presenting to primary care or hospital outpatient settings. Studies that included people who contracted SARS-CoV-2 infection while admitted to hospital were not eligible. The minimum eligible sample size of studies was 10 participants. All signs and symptoms were eligible for this review, including individual signs and symptoms or combinations. We accepted a range of reference standards.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Pairs of review authors independently selected all studies, at both title and abstract, and full-text stage. They resolved any disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 checklist, and resolved disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Analyses were restricted to prospective studies only. We presented sensitivity and specificity in paired forest plots, in receiver operating characteristic (ROC) space and in dumbbell plots. We estimated summary parameters using a bivariate random-effects meta-analysis whenever five or more primary prospective studies were available, and whenever heterogeneity across studies was deemed acceptable.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 90 studies; for this update we focused on the results of 42 prospective studies with 52,608 participants. Prevalence of COVID-19 disease varied from 3.7% to 60.6% with a median of 27.4%. Thirty-five studies were set in emergency departments or outpatient test centres (46,878 participants), three in primary care settings (1230 participants), two in a mixed population of in- and outpatients in a paediatric hospital setting (493 participants), and two overlapping studies in nursing homes (4007 participants). The studies did not clearly distinguish mild COVID-19 disease from COVID-19 pneumonia, so we present the results for both conditions together. Twelve studies had a high risk of bias for selection of participants because they used a high level of preselection to decide whether reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing was needed, or because they enrolled a non-consecutive sample, or because they excluded individuals while they were part of the study base. We rated 36 of the 42 studies as high risk of bias for the index tests because there was little or no detail on how, by whom and when, the symptoms were measured. For most studies, eligibility for testing was dependent on the local case definition and testing criteria that were in effect at the time of the study, meaning most people who were included in studies had already been referred to health services based on the symptoms that we are evaluating in this review. The applicability of the results of this review iteration improved in comparison with the previous reviews. This version has more studies of people presenting to ambulatory settings, which is where the majority of assessments for COVID-19 take place. Only three studies presented any data on children separately, and only one focused specifically on older adults. We found data on 96 symptoms or combinations of signs and symptoms. Evidence on individual signs as diagnostic tests was rarely reported, so this review reports mainly on the diagnostic value of symptoms. Results were highly variable across studies. Most had very low sensitivity and high specificity. RT-PCR was the most often used reference standard (40/42 studies). Only cough (11 studies) had a summary sensitivity above 50% (62.4%, 95% CI 50.6% to 72.9%)); its specificity was low (45.4%, 95% CI 33.5% to 57.9%)). Presence of fever had a sensitivity of 37.6% (95% CI 23.4% to 54.3%) and a specificity of 75.2% (95% CI 56.3% to 87.8%). The summary positive likelihood ratio of cough was 1.14 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.25) and that of fever 1.52 (95% CI 1.10 to 2.10). Sore throat had a summary positive likelihood ratio of 0.814 (95% CI 0.714 to 0.929), which means that its presence increases the probability of having an infectious disease other than COVID-19. Dyspnoea (12 studies) and fatigue (8 studies) had a sensitivity of 23.3% (95% CI 16.4% to 31.9%) and 40.2% (95% CI 19.4% to 65.1%) respectively. Their specificity was 75.7% (95% CI 65.2% to 83.9%) and 73.6% (95% CI 48.4% to 89.3%). The summary positive likelihood ratio of dyspnoea was 0.96 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.11) and that of fatigue 1.52 (95% CI 1.21 to 1.91), which means that the presence of fatigue slightly increases the probability of having COVID-19. Anosmia alone (7 studies), ageusia alone (5 studies), and anosmia or ageusia (6 studies) had summary sensitivities below 50% but summary specificities over 90%. Anosmia had a summary sensitivity of 26.4% (95% CI 13.8% to 44.6%) and a specificity of 94.2% (95% CI 90.6% to 96.5%). Ageusia had a summary sensitivity of 23.2% (95% CI 10.6% to 43.3%) and a specificity of 92.6% (95% CI 83.1% to 97.0%). Anosmia or ageusia had a summary sensitivity of 39.2% (95% CI 26.5% to 53.6%) and a specificity of 92.1% (95% CI 84.5% to 96.2%). The summary positive likelihood ratios of anosmia alone and anosmia or ageusia were 4.55 (95% CI 3.46 to 5.97) and 4.99 (95% CI 3.22 to 7.75) respectively, which is just below our arbitrary definition of a 'red flag', that is, a positive likelihood ratio of at least 5. The summary positive likelihood ratio of ageusia alone was 3.14 (95% CI 1.79 to 5.51). Twenty-four studies assessed combinations of different signs and symptoms, mostly combining olfactory symptoms. By combining symptoms with other information such as contact or travel history, age, gender, and a local recent case detection rate, some multivariable prediction scores reached a sensitivity as high as 90%.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Most individual symptoms included in this review have poor diagnostic accuracy. Neither absence nor presence of symptoms are accurate enough to rule in or rule out the disease. The presence of anosmia or ageusia may be useful as a red flag for the presence of COVID-19. The presence of cough also supports further testing. There is currently no evidence to support further testing with PCR in any individuals presenting only with upper respiratory symptoms such as sore throat, coryza or rhinorrhoea. Combinations of symptoms with other readily available information such as contact or travel history, or the local recent case detection rate may prove more useful and should be further investigated in an unselected population presenting to primary care or hospital outpatient settings. The diagnostic accuracy of symptoms for COVID-19 is moderate to low and any testing strategy using symptoms as selection mechanism will result in both large numbers of missed cases and large numbers of people requiring testing. Which one of these is minimised, is determined by the goal of COVID-19 testing strategies, that is, controlling the epidemic by isolating every possible case versus identifying those with clinically important disease so that they can be monitored or treated to optimise their prognosis. The former will require a testing strategy that uses very few symptoms as entry criterion for testing, the latter could focus on more specific symptoms such as fever and anosmia.
Topics: Aged; Ageusia; Anosmia; Artificial Intelligence; COVID-19; COVID-19 Testing; Child; Cough; Dyspnea; Fatigue; Fever; Hospitals; Humans; Outpatients; Pharyngitis; Primary Health Care; Prospective Studies; SARS-CoV-2; Sensitivity and Specificity
PubMed: 35593186
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013665.pub3 -
Journal of Global Health Apr 2022In November 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) created interim guidance on how to integrate testing for SARS-CoV-2 into existing influenza surveillance systems.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
In November 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) created interim guidance on how to integrate testing for SARS-CoV-2 into existing influenza surveillance systems. Influenza-like illness (ILI) and severe acute respiratory illness (SARI) case definitions have been used to specify the case definition of COVID-19 for surveillance purposes. This review aims to assess whether the common clinical features of COVID-19 have changed to the point that the criteria used to identify both COVID-19 and influenza in surveillance programs needs to be altered.
METHODS
A systematic review of reviews following PRISMA-P guidelines was conducted using the "COVID-19 evidence review" database from August 19, 2020, to August 19, 2021. Reviews providing pooled estimates of the prevalence of clinical features of COVID-19 within the general population, diagnosed by polymerase chain reaction or rapid diagnostic test, were included. These were critically appraised and sensitivity analysis was undertaken to examine potential causes of bias.
RESULTS
Fourteen reviews were identified, including three on adults only and three on children only. For all reviews, combined fever (median prevalence = 73.0%, IQR = 58.3-78.7) and cough (45.1%, IQR = 28.9-54.0) were the most common features. These were followed by loss of taste or smell (45.1%, IQR = 28.9-54.0), hypoxemia (33%, one review), fatigue (26.4%, IQR = 9.0-39.4) and expectoration (23.9%, IQR = 23.3-25.5). Fever and cough continued to be the most prevalent features for adults and children, with subsequent symptoms being similar for adults only. However, the pattern differed for children, with headache (34.3%, IQR = 18-50.7) and nasal congestion (20%, one review) being the third and fourth commonest symptoms.
CONCLUSIONS
The prevalent features found in this recent review were the same as the ones identified at the beginning of the pandemic. Therefore, the current approach of using the ILI and SARI criteria which incorporate fever and cough will identify COVID-19 cases in addition to influenza. Interestingly, children may present with different features, as headaches and nasal congestion were more common in this group. Future research could examine this further and investigate whether symptomology changes with new variants of COVID-19.
Topics: Adult; COVID-19; Child; Cough; Humans; Influenza, Human; Meta-Analysis as Topic; SARS-CoV-2; Virus Diseases
PubMed: 35567582
DOI: 10.7189/jogh.12.05012 -
PloS One 2022The importance and prevalence of olfactory dysfunction is recently gaining attention in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) as a result of their chronic inflammatory... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The importance and prevalence of olfactory dysfunction is recently gaining attention in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) as a result of their chronic inflammatory disease, yet different prevalence rates are reported for it. Therefore, we have designed this systematic review to estimate the pooled prevalence of olfactory dysfunction in patients with MS. To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review and meta-analysis on the prevalence of olfactory dysfunction in MS patients.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, Web of Science, ProQuest, and gray literature including references from the identified studies, review studies, and conference abstracts which were published up to January 2021. Articles that were relevant to our topic and could provide information regarding the prevalence of olfactory dysfunction, or the scores of smell threshold, discrimination, or identification (TDI) among MS patients and healthy individuals were included. The pooled prevalence was calculated using a random-effects model and a funnel plot and Egger's regression test were used to see publication bias.
RESULTS
The literature search found 1630 articles. After eliminating duplicates, 897 articles remained. Two conference abstracts were included for final analysis. A total of 1099 MS cases and 299 MS patients with olfactory dysfunction were included in the analysis. The pooled prevalence of olfactory dysfunction in the included studies was 27.2%. Also, the overall TDI score in MS patients was lower than that in the control group, and the level of Threshold, Discrimination, and Identification per se were lower in MS compared with control respectively.
CONCLUSION
The results of this systematic review show that the prevalence of olfactory dysfunction in MS patients is high and more attention needs to be drawn to this aspect of MS.
Topics: Humans; Multiple Sclerosis; Olfaction Disorders; Prevalence; Publication Bias; Smell
PubMed: 35439251
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0266492 -
Association of Olfactory Impairment With All-Cause Mortality: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.JAMA Otolaryngology-- Head & Neck... May 2022Olfactory impairment is highly prevalent and associated with multiple comorbidities, including neurodegenerative, cardiovascular, nutritional, and immune disorders.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Olfactory impairment is highly prevalent and associated with multiple comorbidities, including neurodegenerative, cardiovascular, nutritional, and immune disorders. However, epidemiologic associations between olfactory impairment and mortality are discordant.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically clarify the epidemiologic associations between olfactory impairment and mortality.
DATA SOURCES
The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to August 13, 2021.
STUDY SELECTION
Two blinded reviewers selected observational studies published as full-length, English-language articles in peer-reviewed journals that reported the presence or severity of chronic olfactory impairment, whether objectively measured or self-reported, in association with any mortality estimate, among adults aged 18 years or older.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two reviewers independently extracted data, evaluated study bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and appraised the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines and a PROSPERO-registered protocol. Maximally adjusted estimates were pooled using mixed-effects models, heterogeneity was measured using I2 statistics, sources of heterogeneity were investigated using meta-regression and subgroup meta-analyses, and publication bias was qualitatively and quantitatively assessed.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Hazard ratios for all-cause mortality.
RESULTS
One retrospective cohort study and 10 prospective cohort studies (with a total of 21 601 participants) from 1088 nonduplicated records were included. Ten studies had a low risk of bias, whereas 1 study had a moderate risk; exclusion of the latter did not alter conclusions. Nine studies were included in the meta-analysis. Olfactory loss was associated with a significantly higher pooled hazard of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.28-1.80; I2 = 82%). Meta-regression sufficiently explained heterogeneity, with longer mean follow-up duration weakening the pooled association, accounting for 91.3% of heterogeneity. Self-reported and objective effect sizes were similar. Associations were robust to trim-and-fill adjustment and the Egger test for publication bias. The overall quality of evidence was moderate.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that olfactory impairment is associated with all-cause mortality and may be a marker of general health and biological aging. Further research is required to establish the underlying mechanisms and the scope for interventions.
Topics: Comorbidity; Humans; Olfaction Disorders; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Risk
PubMed: 35389456
DOI: 10.1001/jamaoto.2022.0263 -
Dermatologic Therapy Jun 2022The aim of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the safety of dupilumab use in the management of atopic dermatitis (AD) during the current pandemic regarding the risk and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The aim of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the safety of dupilumab use in the management of atopic dermatitis (AD) during the current pandemic regarding the risk and the hazards of COVID-19 infection. Seven databases (Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopus, Virtual Health Library, PubMed, System for Information on Gray Literature in Europe, and The New York Academy of Medicine) were searched for eligible studies from inception until November 24, 2021. The quality of evidence was rated using the National Institute of Health and the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tool. Meta-analysis was performed when the outcome is presented ≥2 studies. A total of 12 papers including 1611 AD patients were included in the study. The prevalence of COVID-19 in AD treated with dupilumab was 3.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.7-5.8). COVID-19 symptoms were reported by five patients who were presented with one or more of the following symptoms (fatigue, loss of taste and smell, runny nose, conjunctivitis, gastrointestinal symptoms, fever, cough, and dyspnea). Only three cases of COVID-19 were hospitalized with a prevalence of 4.5%, while no patients with COVID-19 died. Dupilumab is safe regarding the risk and the hazards of COVID-19 in AD patients. Thus, based on these results continuation of dupilumab in AD patients is recommended, since dupilumab seems to be safe and crucial for a better disease outcome.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Dermatitis, Atopic; Humans; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 35357060
DOI: 10.1111/dth.15476 -
Clinical Otolaryngology : Official... Jul 2022The aim of this study was to assess the effect of topical steroids on acute-onset olfactory dysfunction in patients infected with COVID-19. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this study was to assess the effect of topical steroids on acute-onset olfactory dysfunction in patients infected with COVID-19.
DESIGN AND SETTING
Systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies.
PARTICIPANTS
Patients infected with COVID-19.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
PubMed, Embase, the Web of Science, SCOPUS, Cochrane database and Google Scholar were searched for articles up to September 2021. We analysed studies comparing the improvement of olfactory dysfunction between topical steroid treatment and control groups (placebo or no treatment). In addition, we performed a subgroup analysis by study type.
RESULTS
The improvement of olfactory score at 2 (standardised mean difference [SMD] = 0.7272, 95% confidence interval = [0.3851, 1.0692], p < .0001, I = 62.1%) and 4 weeks post-treatment (SMD = 1.0440 [0.6777, 1.4102], p < .0001, I = 61.2%) was statistically greater in the treatment than control group. However, there was no significant difference (odds ratio [OR] = 1.4345 [0.9525, 2.1604], p = .0842, I = 45.4%) in the incidence of fully recovery from anosmia/hyposmia between the treatment and control groups. In subgroup analysis, there were no significant differences in the improvement of olfactory score at 4 weeks post-treatment (OR = 0.6177 [0.1309, 1.1045] vs. 0.1720 [0.8002, 1.5438], p = .0761) or the incidence of full recovery from anosmia/hyposmia (OR = 1.8478 [0.6092, 5.6053] vs. 1.3784 [0.8872, 2.1414], p = .8038) between randomised and non-randomised controlled trials.
CONCLUSIONS
Although this meta-analysis found that topical steroids improved the acute-onset olfactory dysfunction caused by COVID-19, there was no difference in the rate of full olfactory recovery between treated and control patients.
Topics: Anosmia; COVID-19; Humans; Olfaction Disorders; Smell; Steroids
PubMed: 35352483
DOI: 10.1111/coa.13933