CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2021; 25(04): e563-e569
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1722249
Original Research

Differences in Correlation between Subjective and Measured Olfactory and Gustatory Dysfunctions after Initial Ear, Nose and Throat Evaluation

1   Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Flavour Clinic, West Hospital Unit, Central Denmark Region, Holstebro, Denmark
2   Flavour Institute, Aarhus University, Palle Juul-Jensens, Aarhus N, Denmark
,
1   Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Flavour Clinic, West Hospital Unit, Central Denmark Region, Holstebro, Denmark
2   Flavour Institute, Aarhus University, Palle Juul-Jensens, Aarhus N, Denmark
3   Department of Psychiatry, Center for Eudaimonia and Human Flourishing, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
› Author Affiliations
Funding Sources The last author wishes to acknowledge research salary funding from Arla Foods (Viby, Denmark) and the Central Denmark Region, as well as research funding from the Hans Skouby Foundation and the Velux Fonden. The sponsors had no say, roles or responsibilities in relation to the study, including (but not limited to) the study design, data collection, management and analysis.

Abstract

Introduction Subjective chemosensory function can differ from measured function. Previous studies on olfactory assessment have found a positive correlation between subjective and measured scores. However, information on gustatory correlation between measured and subjective functions is sparse in patients who have undergone an initial ear, nose and throat (ENT) evaluation.

Objectives To evaluate the correlation between subjective and measured olfactory and gustatory dysfunctions in a population complaining of taste and/or smell dysfunction after an initial ENT evaluation without chemosensory testing. Furthermore, we aimed to assess the need for chemosensory testing depending on the type of subjective chemosensory dysfunction.

Methods A case series in which subjective chemosensory function was assessed through a questionnaire and measured chemosensory function was assessed by validated clinical tests.

Results In total, 602 patients with complaints of olfactory and/or gustatory dysfunction were included. We found that 50% of the patients with normal gustatory function and an olfactory impairment classified their olfactory impairment as a subjective taste disorder. Furthermore, 98% of the patients who rated their olfactory function as absent did have a measurable olfactory impairment, but only 64% were anosmic.

Conclusion Subjective gustatory dysfunction was poorly correlated with measured gustatory dysfunction, and was often found to reflect olfactory dysfunction. Contrarily, subjective olfactory dysfunction was positively correlated with measurable olfactory dysfunction. Although subjective anosmia was a strong indicator of measured anosmia or hyposmia, the existence of remaining olfactory function was frequently found in these patients. Validated chemosensory testing should be performed in patients with perceived olfactory or gustatory deficits, as this could help ensure increased diagnostic precision and a relevant treatment.

Statement of Ethics

The present study was conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki on Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects. As the study was based on register data, it did not require regional Ethical Committee approval in accordance with the Danish Committee Act, Section 10, Subsection 1. During enrolment, the subjects were given detailed information about all testing procedures. Written consent was obtained from all patients prior to the study, and storage of data was approved by the Danish Data Protection Agency (reference number 1–16–02–394–19).


Author Contributions

The idea for the project was conceived by the last author. Both authors contributed to the planning of the study and data analysis, wrote the initial draft of the manuscript, and contributed to a subsequent review of the manuscript.




Publication History

Received: 02 September 2020

Accepted: 08 November 2020

Article published online:
19 February 2021

© 2021. Fundação Otorrinolaringologia. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil

 
  • References

  • 1 Fjaeldstad A, Fernandes H, Nyengaard JR, Ovesen T. [The sense of taste in a clinical setting]. Ugeskr Laeger 2018; 180 (18) V08170627
  • 2 Roper SD. Taste buds as peripheral chemosensory processors. Semin Cell Dev Biol 2013; 24 (01) 71-79 DOI: 10.1016/j.semcdb.2012.12.002.
  • 3 Fjaeldstad A, Clausen CH, Kjærgaard T, Ovesen T. [The forgotten cranial nerve - clinical importance of olfaction]. Ugeskr Laeger 2015; 177 (03) 265-269
  • 4 Vennemann MM, Hummel T, Berger K. The association between smoking and smell and taste impairment in the general population. J Neurol 2008; 255 (08) 1121-1126 DOI: 10.1007/s00415-008-0807-9.
  • 5 Neuland C, Bitter T, Marschner H, Gudziol H, Guntinas-Lichius O. Health-related and specific olfaction-related quality of life in patients with chronic functional anosmia or severe hyposmia. Laryngoscope 2011; 121 (04) 867-872 DOI: 10.1002/lary.21387.
  • 6 Croy I, Nordin S, Hummel T. Olfactory disorders and quality of life--an updated review. Chem Senses 2014; 39 (03) 185-194 DOI: 10.1093/chemse/bjt072.
  • 7 Malaty J, Malaty IAC. Smell and taste disorders in primary care. Am Fam Physician 2013; 88 (12) 852-859
  • 8 McNeill E, Ramakrishnan Y, Carrie S. Diagnosis and management of olfactory disorders: survey of UK-based consultants and literature review. J Laryngol Otol 2007; 121 (08) 713-720
  • 9 Fokkens WJ, Lund VJ, Mullol J. et al. EPOS 2012: European position paper on rhinosinusitis and nasal polyps 2012. A summary for otorhinolaryngologists. Rhinology 2012; 50 (01) 1-12 DOI: 10.4193/Rhino50E2.
  • 10 Fokkens WJ, Lund VJ, Hopkins C. et al. European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps 2020. Rhinology 2020; 58 (S29): 1-464
  • 11 Welge-Luessen A, Hummel T, Stojan T, Wolfensberger M. What is the correlation between ratings and measures of olfactory function in patients with olfactory loss?. Am J Rhinol 2005; 19 (06) 567-571
  • 12 Haxel BR, Bertz-Duffy S, Fruth K, Letzel S, Mann WJ, Muttray A. Comparison of subjective olfaction ratings in patients with and without olfactory disorders. J Laryngol Otol 2012; 126 (07) 692-697 DOI: 10.1017/S002221511200076X.
  • 13 Fjaeldstad AW, Stankovic J, Onat M, Stankevice D, Ovesen T. Patients and experiences from the first Danish flavour clinic. Dan Med J 2020; 67: 1-5
  • 14 Hummel T, Sekinger B, Wolf SR, Pauli E, Kobal G. ‘Sniffin’ sticks': olfactory performance assessed by the combined testing of odor identification, odor discrimination and olfactory threshold. Chem Senses 1997; 22 (01) 39-52 DOI: 10.1093/chemse/22.1.39.
  • 15 Niklassen AS, Ovesen T, Fernandes H, Fjaeldstad AW. Danish validation of sniffin' sticks olfactory test for threshold, discrimination, and identification. Laryngoscope 2018; 128 (08) 1759-1766 DOI: 10.1002/lary.27052.
  • 16 Kobal G, Klimek L, Wolfensberger M. et al. Multicenter investigation of 1,036 subjects using a standardized method for the assessment of olfactory function combining tests of odor identification, odor discrimination, and olfactory thresholds. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2000; 257 (04) 205-211
  • 17 Mueller C, Kallert S, Renner B. et al. Quantitative assessment of gustatory function in a clinical context using impregnated “taste strips”. Rhinology 2003; 41 (01) 2-6
  • 18 Fjaeldstad A, Niklassen AS, Fernandes HM. Re-Test Reliability of Gustatory Testing and Introduction of the Sensitive Taste-Drop-Test. Chem Senses 2018; 43 (05) 341-346 DOI: 10.1093/chemse/bjy019.
  • 19 Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. “Mini-mental state”. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 1975; 12 (03) 189-198 DOI: 10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6.
  • 20 Lötsch J, Hummel T. Clinical usefulness of self-rated olfactory performance - a data science-based assessment of 6000 patients. Chem Senses 2019; 44 (06) 357-364 DOI: 10.1093/chemse/bjz029.
  • 21 Shu C-H, Hummel T, Lee P-L, Chiu C-H, Lin S-H, Yuan B-C. The proportion of self-rated olfactory dysfunction does not change across the life span. Am J Rhinol Allergy 2009; 23 (04) 413-416 DOI: 10.2500/ajra.2009.23.3343.
  • 22 Oleszkiewicz A, Schriever VA, Croy I, Hähner A, Hummel T. Updated Sniffin' Sticks normative data based on an extended sample of 9139 subjects. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2019; 276 (03) 719-728 DOI: 10.1007/s00405-018-5248-1.
  • 23 Pribitkin E, Rosenthal MD, Cowart BJ. Prevalence and causes of severe taste loss in a chemosensory clinic population. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2003; 112 (11) 971-978 DOI: 10.1177/000348940311201110.
  • 24 Deems DA, Doty RL, Settle RG. et al. Smell and taste disorders, a study of 750 patients from the University of Pennsylvania Smell and Taste Center. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1991; 117 (05) 519-528
  • 25 Landis BN, Konnerth CG, Hummel T. A study on the frequency of olfactory dysfunction. Laryngoscope 2004; 114 (10) 1764-1769 DOI: 10.1097/00005537-200410000-00017.
  • 26 Soter A, Kim J, Jackman A, Tourbier I, Kaul A, Doty RL. Accuracy of self-report in detecting taste dysfunction. Laryngoscope 2008; 118 (04) 611-617 DOI: 10.1097/MLG.0b013e318161e53a.
  • 27 Hunt JD, Reiter ER, Costanzo RM. Etiology of subjective taste loss. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 2019; 9 (04) 409-412 DOI: 10.1002/alr.22263.
  • 28 Hong S-C, Holbrook EH, Leopold DA, Hummel T. Distorted olfactory perception: a systematic review. Acta Otolaryngol 2012; 132 (1, Suppl 1): S27-S31
  • 29 Hummel T, Whitcroft KL, Andrews P. et al. Position paper on olfactory dysfunction. Rhinol Suppl 2017; 54 (26) 1-30 DOI: 10.4193/Rhin16.248.