Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

Objective sensory testing methods reveal a higher prevalence of olfactory loss in COVID-19–positive patients compared to subjective methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis

View ORCID ProfileMackenzie E. Hannum, Vicente A. Ramirez, Sarah J. Lipson, Riley D. Herriman, Aurora K. Toskala, View ORCID ProfileCailu Lin, View ORCID ProfilePaule V. Joseph, View ORCID ProfileDanielle R. Reed
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.04.20145870
Mackenzie E. Hannum
1Monell Chemical Senses Center, 3500 Market St, Philadelphia PA 19104
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Mackenzie E. Hannum
Vicente A. Ramirez
1Monell Chemical Senses Center, 3500 Market St, Philadelphia PA 19104
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sarah J. Lipson
1Monell Chemical Senses Center, 3500 Market St, Philadelphia PA 19104
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Riley D. Herriman
1Monell Chemical Senses Center, 3500 Market St, Philadelphia PA 19104
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Aurora K. Toskala
1Monell Chemical Senses Center, 3500 Market St, Philadelphia PA 19104
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Cailu Lin
1Monell Chemical Senses Center, 3500 Market St, Philadelphia PA 19104
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Cailu Lin
Paule V. Joseph
2Division of Intramural Research, National Institute of Nursing Research, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
3Division of Intramural Research, National Institute of Nursing Research & National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Paule V. Joseph
Danielle R. Reed
1Monell Chemical Senses Center, 3500 Market St, Philadelphia PA 19104
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Danielle R. Reed
  • For correspondence: reed@monell.org
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has currently infected over 6.5 million people worldwide. In response to the pandemic, numerous studies have tried to identify causes and symptoms of the disease. Emerging evidence supports recently acquired anosmia (complete loss of smell) and hyposmia (partial loss of smell) as symptoms of COVID-19, but studies of olfactory dysfunction show a wide range of prevalence, from 5% to 98%. We undertook a search of Pubmed/Medline and Google Scholar with the keywords “COVID-19,” “smell,” and/or “olfaction.” We included any study that quantified olfactory loss as a symptom of COVID-19. Studies were grouped and compared based on the type of method used to measure smell loss—subjective measures such as self-reported smell loss versus objective measures using rated stimuli—to determine if prevalence rate differed by method type. For each study, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated from point estimates of olfactory disturbance rates. We identified 34 articles quantifying anosmia as a symptom of COVID-19, collected from cases identified from January 16 to April 30, 2020. The pooled prevalence estimate of smell loss was 77% when assessed through objective measurements (95% CI of 61.4-89.2%) and 45% with subjective measurements (95% CI of 31.1-58.5%). Objective measures are a more sensitive method to identify smell loss as a result of infection with SARS-CoV-2; the use of subjective measures, while expedient during the early stages of the pandemic, underestimates the true prevalence of smell loss.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

Dr. Mackenzie Hannum is supported by NIH T32 funding (DC000014). Dr. Paule Joseph is supported by the National Institute of Nursing Research under award number 1ZIANR000035-01. PVJ is also supported by the Office of Workforce Diversity, National Institutes of Health and the Rockefeller University Heilbrunn Nurse Scholar Award.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

This is a meta-analysis and systematic review and the IRBs approved the individual studies and no IRB approval is needed fo conduct this meta-analysis of published literature

All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

Data Availability

All code and data are available on Github

https://github.com/vramirez4/OlfactoryLoss

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted July 06, 2020.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Objective sensory testing methods reveal a higher prevalence of olfactory loss in COVID-19–positive patients compared to subjective methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Objective sensory testing methods reveal a higher prevalence of olfactory loss in COVID-19–positive patients compared to subjective methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Mackenzie E. Hannum, Vicente A. Ramirez, Sarah J. Lipson, Riley D. Herriman, Aurora K. Toskala, Cailu Lin, Paule V. Joseph, Danielle R. Reed
medRxiv 2020.07.04.20145870; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.04.20145870
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Objective sensory testing methods reveal a higher prevalence of olfactory loss in COVID-19–positive patients compared to subjective methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Mackenzie E. Hannum, Vicente A. Ramirez, Sarah J. Lipson, Riley D. Herriman, Aurora K. Toskala, Cailu Lin, Paule V. Joseph, Danielle R. Reed
medRxiv 2020.07.04.20145870; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.04.20145870

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS)
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (70)
  • Allergy and Immunology (168)
  • Anesthesia (51)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (453)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (83)
  • Dermatology (55)
  • Emergency Medicine (158)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (191)
  • Epidemiology (5273)
  • Forensic Medicine (3)
  • Gastroenterology (196)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (759)
  • Geriatric Medicine (80)
  • Health Economics (213)
  • Health Informatics (700)
  • Health Policy (361)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (224)
  • Hematology (99)
  • HIV/AIDS (164)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (5895)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (363)
  • Medical Education (105)
  • Medical Ethics (25)
  • Nephrology (83)
  • Neurology (767)
  • Nursing (43)
  • Nutrition (131)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (144)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (234)
  • Oncology (480)
  • Ophthalmology (152)
  • Orthopedics (39)
  • Otolaryngology (95)
  • Pain Medicine (39)
  • Palliative Medicine (20)
  • Pathology (141)
  • Pediatrics (223)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (136)
  • Primary Care Research (99)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (865)
  • Public and Global Health (2023)
  • Radiology and Imaging (349)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (158)
  • Respiratory Medicine (287)
  • Rheumatology (94)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (74)
  • Sports Medicine (77)
  • Surgery (110)
  • Toxicology (25)
  • Transplantation (29)
  • Urology (39)