-
Neuropsychology Review Dec 2023Reports of smell loss following traumatic brain injury (TBI) are a well-documented but understudied phenomenon. Given the broad consequences of olfactory loss, we... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Reports of smell loss following traumatic brain injury (TBI) are a well-documented but understudied phenomenon. Given the broad consequences of olfactory loss, we characterized psychophysical olfactory dysfunction in individuals with moderate to severe TBI using systematic review and meta-analytic methods.
METHODS
Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) protocol, five databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus) were reviewed for studies investigating olfactory dysfunction in persons with moderate to severe TBI. Of the 5,223 studies reviewed, 19 met our inclusion criteria for the systematic review and 11 met inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. We calculated effect sizes (Hedges' g) to characterize the degree of olfactory dysfunction between patients with moderate to severe TBI and controls.
RESULTS
A total of 951 moderate-severe TBI patients from 19 studies were included in the systematic review, which largely demonstrated poorer olfactory psychophysical performances in this patient population. Meta-analysis demonstrated a large effect size for olfactory dysfunction in moderate-severe TBI relative to healthy controls (g=-2.43, 95%CI: -3.16 < δ<-1.69). The magnitude of the effect was moderated by age and patient sex, with larger effect sizes associated with older age (following exclusion of a pediatric population) and larger compositions of women in the patient group.
CONCLUSION
Moderate to severe TBI is associated with prominent olfactory dysfunction. Significant research gaps remain regarding the mechanism, recovery and natural history of olfactory dysfunction following moderate to severe TBI, which has significant clinical implications for the identification and treatment for those with post-traumatic olfactory dysfunction.
Topics: Humans; Child; Female; Olfaction Disorders; Brain Injuries, Traumatic; Smell
PubMed: 36070126
DOI: 10.1007/s11065-022-09563-2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2022Loss of olfactory function is well recognised as a symptom of COVID-19 infection, and the pandemic has resulted in a large number of individuals with abnormalities in... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Loss of olfactory function is well recognised as a symptom of COVID-19 infection, and the pandemic has resulted in a large number of individuals with abnormalities in their sense of smell. For many, the condition is temporary and resolves within two to four weeks. However, in a significant minority the symptoms persist. At present, it is not known whether early intervention with any form of treatment (such as medication or olfactory training) can promote recovery and prevent persisting olfactory disturbance. This is an update of the 2021 review with four studies added.
OBJECTIVES
1) To evaluate the benefits and harms of any intervention versus no treatment for people with acute olfactory dysfunction due to COVID-19 infection. 2) To keep the evidence up-to-date, using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the latest search was 20 October 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in people with COVID-19 related olfactory disturbance, which had been present for less than four weeks. We included any intervention compared to no treatment or placebo. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were the presence of normal olfactory function, serious adverse effects and change in sense of smell. Secondary outcomes were the prevalence of parosmia, change in sense of taste, disease-related quality of life and other adverse effects (including nosebleeds/bloody discharge). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included five studies with 691 participants. The studies evaluated the following interventions: intranasal corticosteroid sprays, intranasal corticosteroid drops, intranasal hypertonic saline and zinc sulphate. Intranasal corticosteroid spray compared to no intervention/placebo We included three studies with 288 participants who had olfactory dysfunction for less than four weeks following COVID-19. Presence of normal olfactory function The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of intranasal corticosteroid spray on both self-rated recovery of olfactory function and recovery of olfactory function using psychophysical tests at up to four weeks follow-up (self-rated: risk ratio (RR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.68; 1 study; 100 participants; psychophysical testing: RR 2.3, 95% CI 1.16 to 4.63; 1 study; 77 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Change in sense of smell The evidence is also very uncertain about the effect of intranasal corticosteroid spray on self-rated change in the sense of smell (at less than 4 weeks: mean difference (MD) 0.5 points lower, 95% CI 1.38 lower to 0.38 higher; 1 study; 77 participants; at > 4 weeks to 3 months: MD 2.4 points higher, 95% CI 1.32 higher to 3.48 higher; 1 study; 100 participants; very low-certainty evidence, rated on a scale of 1 to 10, higher scores mean better olfactory function). Intranasal corticosteroids may make little or no difference to the change in sense of smell when assessed with psychophysical testing (MD 0.2 points, 95% CI 2.06 points lower to 2.06 points higher; 1 study; 77 participants; low-certainty evidence, 0- to 24-point scale, higher scores mean better olfactory function). Serious adverse effects The authors of one study reported no adverse effects, but their intention to collect these data was not pre-specified so we are uncertain if these were systematically sought and identified. The remaining two studies did not report on adverse effects. Intranasal corticosteroid drops compared to no intervention/placebo We included one study with 248 participants who had olfactory dysfunction for ≤ 15 days following COVID-19. Presence of normal olfactory function Intranasal corticosteroid drops may make little or no difference to self-rated recovery at > 4 weeks to 3 months (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.11; 1 study; 248 participants; low-certainty evidence). No other outcomes were assessed by this study. Data on the use of hypertonic saline nasal irrigation and the use of zinc sulphate to prevent persistent olfactory dysfunction are included in the full text of the review.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is very limited evidence available on the efficacy and harms of treatments for preventing persistent olfactory dysfunction following COVID-19 infection. However, we have identified a number of ongoing trials in this area. As this is a living systematic review we will update the data regularly, as new results become available.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; COVID-19; Chronic Disease; Humans; Olfaction Disorders; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rhinitis; Smell; Zinc Sulfate
PubMed: 36063364
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013877.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2022Olfactory dysfunction is a common consequence of COVID-19 infection and persistent symptoms can have a profound impact on quality of life. At present there is little... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Olfactory dysfunction is a common consequence of COVID-19 infection and persistent symptoms can have a profound impact on quality of life. At present there is little guidance on how best to treat this condition. A variety of interventions have been suggested to promote recovery, including medication and olfactory training. However, it is uncertain whether any intervention is of benefit. This is an update of the 2021 review with one additional study added. OBJECTIVES: 1) To evaluate the benefits and harms of any intervention versus no treatment for people with persisting olfactory dysfunction due to COVID-19 infection. 2) To keep the evidence up-to-date, using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the latest search was 20 October 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in people with COVID-19 related olfactory disturbance that had persisted for at least four weeks. We included any intervention compared to no treatment or placebo. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were the recovery of sense of smell, disease-related quality of life and serious adverse effects. Secondary outcomes were the change in sense of smell, general quality of life, prevalence of parosmia and other adverse effects (including nosebleeds/bloody discharge). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We included two studies with 30 participants. The studies evaluated the following interventions: systemic corticosteroids plus intranasal corticosteroid/mucolytic/decongestant and palmitoylethanolamide plus luteolin. Systemic corticosteroids plus intranasal corticosteroid/mucolytic/decongestant compared to no intervention We included a single RCT with 18 participants who had anosmia for at least 30 days following COVID-19 infection. Participants received a 15-day course of oral corticosteroids combined with nasal irrigation (consisting of an intranasal corticosteroid/mucolytic/decongestant solution) or no intervention. Psychophysical testing was used to assess olfactory function at 40 days. This is a single, small study and for all outcomes the certainty of evidence was very low. We are unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results. Palmitoylethanolamide plus luteolin compared to no intervention We included a single RCT with 12 participants who had anosmia or hyposmia for at least 90 days following COVID-19 infection. Participants received a 30-day course of palmitoylethanolamide and luteolin or no intervention. Psychophysical testing was used to assess olfactory function at 30 days. This is a single, small study and for all outcomes the certainty of evidence was very low. We are unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is very limited evidence available on the efficacy and harms of treatments for persistent olfactory dysfunction following COVID-19 infection. However, we have identified a number of ongoing trials in this area. As this is a living systematic review we will update the data regularly, as new results become available.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Anosmia; COVID-19; Expectorants; Humans; Luteolin; Nasal Decongestants; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Smell
PubMed: 36062970
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013876.pub3 -
Frontiers in Psychology 2022With the global society aging, it is necessary to investigate suitable font size based on reading time/speed, readability and legibility for older adults. This study...
With the global society aging, it is necessary to investigate suitable font size based on reading time/speed, readability and legibility for older adults. This study used a systematic review of previous and existing relevant research on font size for older adults and research on the psychophysics of reading and analyzed the outcomes based on reading time/speed, readability, legibility and the usability evaluation methods employed. Studies were selected from databases GOOGLE SCHOLAR, WEB OF SCIENCE, PUBMED, and SCIENCE DIRECT. An inclusion criterion was used to remove duplicates and avoid inconsistencies. Results suggest that older adults preferred larger font sizes. However, there exists a critical size at which readability declines. Inconsistencies in evaluation methods and experimental procedures were observed in the selected articles. This study suggested a reusable catalog of usability evaluation methods, eye tracking for user testing and a questionnaire for inquiry as suitable usability evaluation methods, a uniform metrics to measure font size (visual angle of font) in arcminutes and parameters to consider when investigating font size for older adults to ensure consistency in future studies.
PubMed: 35978796
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.931646 -
Acta Bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis May 2022Older adults, especially in isolation and with cognitive decline/dementia, can become more anxious and stressed during the quarantine. All these symptoms negatively...
BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE WORK
Older adults, especially in isolation and with cognitive decline/dementia, can become more anxious and stressed during the quarantine. All these symptoms negatively affect the psycho-physical health of their caregivers. This study aimed to synthesize the current evidence on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on caregivers' mental health.
METHODS
A rapid systematic review was conducted using the following databases: Pubmed/Medline, CINAHL, Scopus, and PsycInfo (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020215485). The 'PRISMA' flow chart guided the selection of articles. The search was entirely performed up to September 15th, 2021.
RESULTS
The narrative synthesis has brought out two main themes that represent the current debate in literature: "Family caregivers COVID-19 related stress", and "(Mal)adaptive strategies to the "new" normality".
CONCLUSIONS
This study provides an evidence synthesis of the negative mental health impact experienced by caregivers of older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Topics: Aged; COVID-19; Caregivers; Humans; Mental Health; Pandemics; Quarantine
PubMed: 35545977
DOI: 10.23750/abm.v93iS2.12979 -
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Mar 2022The periodontium has important proprioceptive receptors that prevent teeth from using excessive occlusal forces during chewing. There are other receptors from adjacent... (Review)
Review
The periodontium has important proprioceptive receptors that prevent teeth from using excessive occlusal forces during chewing. There are other receptors from adjacent tissues that replace periodontal ones when teeth are extracted and rehabilitated with prosthesis, although they seem to be less effective. Psychophysical studies investigate tactile sensibility thresholds, which are useful to measure this masticatory efficiency in different prosthetic rehabilitations. There are two types of sensibility depending on the receptors that are activated during these studies: active and passive tactile sensibility. The purpose of this study is to obtain active and passive tactile sensibility threshold figures in natural dentition and prosthetic rehabilitations so we can compare them and understand how this sensibility works in different situations. We performed a systematic review of the available literature, following PRISMA guidelines and including articles from 2004 to 2021 in the MEDLINE database. Only 10 articles were included in this investigation as they provided concrete threshold figures. The mean values of active tactile sensibility thresholds in complete dentures, implant prosthesis and natural dentition are 64 µ, 23.3 µ and 16.1 µ, respectively. The mean values of passive tactile sensibility thresholds in implant prosthesis and natural dentition are 6.7 N and 0.8 N, respectively. Implant prosthesis have lower thresholds, that are very close to those present in natural dentition, than complete dentures due to an increased tactile sensibility. Active tactile sensibility thresholds present fewer differences between values than passive tactile ones; as these are only influenced by receptors from periodontal or periimplant tissues.
Topics: Dentition; Denture, Complete; Humans; Mouth, Edentulous; Sensory Thresholds; Touch
PubMed: 35454340
DOI: 10.3390/medicina58040501 -
Journal of Sport and Health Science Mar 2023Proprioceptive accuracy refers to the individual's ability to perceive proprioceptive information, that is, the information referring to the actual state of the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Proprioceptive accuracy refers to the individual's ability to perceive proprioceptive information, that is, the information referring to the actual state of the locomotor system, which originates from mechanoreceptors located in various parts of the locomotor system and from tactile receptors located in the skin. Proprioceptive accuracy appears to be an important aspect in the evaluation of sensorimotor functioning; however, no widely accepted standard assessment exists. In this systematic review, our goal was to identify and categorize different methods that are used to assess different aspects of proprioceptive accuracy.
METHODS
A literature search was conducted in 5 different databases (PubMed, SPORTDiscus, PsycINFO, ScienceDirect, and SpringerLink).
RESULTS
Overall, 1139 scientific papers reporting 1346 methods were included in this review. The methods assess 8 different aspects of proprioception: (a) the perception of joint position, (b) movement and movement extent, (c) trajectory, (d) velocity, and the sense of (e) force, (f) muscle tension, (g) weight, and (h) size. They apply various paradigms of psychophysics (i.e., the method of adjustment, constant stimuli, and limits).
CONCLUSION
As the outcomes of different tasks with respect to various body parts show no associations (i.e., proprioceptive accuracy is characterized by site-specificity and method-specificity), the appropriate measurement method for the task needs to be chosen based on theoretical considerations and/or ecological validity.
Topics: Proprioception; Movement
PubMed: 35390537
DOI: 10.1016/j.jshs.2022.04.001 -
JMIR MHealth and UHealth Feb 2022Vision impairments (VIs) and blindness are major global public health issues. A visual acuity (VA) test is one of the most crucial standard psychophysical tests of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Vision impairments (VIs) and blindness are major global public health issues. A visual acuity (VA) test is one of the most crucial standard psychophysical tests of visual function and has been widely used in a broad range of health care domains, especially in many clinical settings. In recent years, there has been increasing research on mobile app-based VA assessment designed to allow people to test their VA at any time and any location.
OBJECTIVE
The goal of the review was to assess the accuracy and reliability of using mobile VA measurement apps.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar for relevant articles on mobile apps for VA assessment published between January 1, 2008, and July 1, 2020. Two researchers independently inspected and selected relevant studies. Eventually, we included 22 studies that assessed tablet or smartphone apps for VA measurement. We then analyzed sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy in the 6 papers we found through a meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Most of the 22 selected studies can be considered of high quality based on the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2. In a meta-analysis of 6 studies involving 24,284 participants, we categorized the studies based on the age groups of the study participants (ie, aged 3-5 years, aged 6-22 years, and aged 55 years and older), examiner (ie, professional and nonprofessional examiners), and the type of mobile devices (ie, smartphone, iPad). In the group aged 3 to 5 years, the pooled sensitivity for VA app tests versus clinical VA tests was 0.87 (95% CI 0.79-0.93; P=.39), and the pooled specificity was 0.78 (95% CI 0.70-0.85; P=.37). In the group aged 6 to 22 years, the pooled sensitivity for VA app tests versus clinical VA tests was 0.86 (95% CI 0.84-0.87; P<.001), and the pooled specificity for VA app tests versus clinical VA tests was 0.91 (95% CI 0.90-0.91; P=.27). In the group aged 55 years and older, the pooled sensitivity for VA app tests versus clinical VA tests was 0.85 (95% CI 0.55-0.98), and the pooled specificity for VA app tests versus clinical VA tests was 0.98 (95% CI 0.95-0.99). We found that the nonprofessional examiner group (AUC 0.93) had higher accuracy than the professional examiner group (AUC 0.87). In the iPad-based group, the pooled sensitivity for VA app tests versus clinical VA tests was 0.86, and the pooled specificity was 0.79. In the smartphone-based group, the pooled sensitivity for VA app tests versus clinical VA tests was 0.86 (P<.001), and the pooled specificity for VA app tests versus clinical VA tests was 0.91 (P<.001).
CONCLUSIONS
In this study, we conducted a comprehensive review of the research on existing mobile apps for VA tests to investigate their diagnostic value and limitations. Evidence gained from this study suggests that mobile app-based VA tests can be useful for on-demand VI detection.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Child; Child, Preschool; Computers, Handheld; Humans; Middle Aged; Mobile Applications; Reproducibility of Results; Smartphone; Visual Acuity; Young Adult
PubMed: 35156935
DOI: 10.2196/26275 -
Scandinavian Journal of Pain Apr 2022Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) is a psychophysical parameter that is used to reflect the efficacy of endogenous pain inhibition. CPM reliability is important for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) is a psychophysical parameter that is used to reflect the efficacy of endogenous pain inhibition. CPM reliability is important for research and potential clinical applications. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the reliability of CPM tests in healthy individuals and chronic pain patients.
METHODS
We searched three databases for peer-reviewed studies published from inception to October 2020: EMBASE, Web of Science and NCBI. Risk of bias and the quality of the included studies were assessed. A meta-analysis with a random effects model was conducted to estimate intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs).
RESULTS
Meta-analysis was performed on 25 papers that examined healthy participants (=21) or chronic pain patients (=4). The highest CPM intra-session reliability was with pressure as test stimulus (TS) and ischemic pressure (IP) or cold pressor test (CPT) as conditioning stimulus (CS) in healthy individuals (ICC 0.64, 95% CI 0.45-0.77), and pressure as TS with CPT as CS in patients (ICC 0.77, 95% CI 0.70-0.82). The highest inter-session ICC was with IP as TS and IP or CPT as CS (ICC 0.51, 95% CI 0.42-0.59) in healthy subjects. The only data available in patients for inter-session reliability were with pressure as TS and CPT as CS (ICC 0.44, 95% CI 0.11-0.69). Quality ranged from very good to excellent using the QACMRR checklist. The majority of the studies (24 out of 25) scored inadequate in Kappa coefficient reporting item of the COSMIN-ROB checklist.
CONCLUSIONS
Pressure and CPT were the TS and CS most consistently associated with good to excellent intra-session reliability in healthy volunteers and chronic pain patients. The inter-session reliability was fair or less for all modalities, both in healthy volunteers and chronic pain patients.
Topics: Chronic Pain; Conditioning, Psychological; Humans; Pain Measurement; Pain Threshold; Reproducibility of Results
PubMed: 35142147
DOI: 10.1515/sjpain-2021-0149 -
International Journal of Environmental... Dec 2021With the term Virtual reality (VR) we refer to a three-dimensional environment generated by the computer, in which subjects interact with the environment as if they... (Review)
Review
With the term Virtual reality (VR) we refer to a three-dimensional environment generated by the computer, in which subjects interact with the environment as if they were really inside it. The most used VR tools are the so-called HMD (head-mounted display) which make it possible to achieve what theorists define "direct mediated action". The aim of our systematic review is specifically to investigate the applications of virtual reality therapy for the treatment of social anxiety disorder, also known as social phobia. The most common treatment for social anxiety disorder is represented by "in vivo exposure therapy" (iVET). This method consists of exposing the participant, in a gradual and controlled way, to anxious stimuli, with the goal to change the subject's response to the object or situation that is causing the fear. However, the main flaw of "in Vivo therapies" is represented by both the huge costs involved and the possible disturbance variables that can hinder the execution of the therapeutic treatment. Virtual reality exposure therapy could therefore, if confirmed in its effectiveness, constitute a solution to eliminate these two defects demonstrated by "in vivo exposure therapy". The goal is to use VR as a means for the clinician to build a tailor-made path for the participant in order to make him acquire "in virtual" those skills necessary for a good adaptation in the "real" world. From February 2021 until the date of submission of the article (September 2021), we conducted a systematic review aiming to verify the effectiveness of virtual reality exposure therapy (VRET) for the treatment of SAD. We identified a total of 205 unique articles. Among these, 20 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility and 5 of these met the eligibility criteria and were, therefore, included in the final systematic review. Virtual reality therapies proved to be a valid alternative to the acquisition of social skills suitable for improving the symptoms of SAD. Although there has not been a significant difference between VRET and iVET, the low costs and flexibility of VRET open up new scenarios for achieving greater psychophysical well-being.
Topics: Anxiety; Fear; Humans; Male; Phobia, Social; Virtual Reality; Virtual Reality Exposure Therapy
PubMed: 34948817
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph182413209