Search

Background: Olfactory dysfunction is an increasingly recognised condition, associated with reduced quality of life and major health outcomes such as neurodegeneration and death. However, translational research in this field is limited by heterogeneity in methodological approach, including definitions of impairment, improvement and appropriate assessment techniques. Accordingly, effective treatments for smell loss are limited. In an effort to encourage high quality and comparable work in this field, among others, we propose the following ideas and recommendations. Whilst the full set of recommendations are outlined in the main document, points include the following: Patients with suspected olfactory loss should undergo a full examination of the head and neck, including rigid nasal endoscopy with small diameter endoscopes. Subjective olfactory assessment should not be undertaken in isolation, given its poor reliability. Psychophysical assessment tools used in clinical and research settings should include reliable and validated tests of odour threshold, and/or one of odour identification or discrimination. Comprehensive chemosensory assessment should include gustatory screening. Smell training can be helpful in patients with olfactory loss of several aetiologies. Conclusions: We hope the current manuscript will encourage clinicians and researchers to adopt a common language, and in so doing, increase the methodological quality, consistency and generalisability of work in this field., Poruchy čichu jsou stále četnější, spojeny se zhoršenou kvalitou života a zdravotními obtížemi, jako jsou neurogenerativní nemoci a smrt. Bohužel je výzkum omezen pro rozdílné metodické postupy, rozdílné definice, odpovídající hodnocení čichu. Účinná léčba poruch čichu je omezená. Ke zlepšení a podpoře vysoké kvality a podpoře práce v této oblasti navrhujeme následující myšlenky a doporučení. Pacienti s podezřením na poruchu čichu mají podstoupit plné vyšetření ORL lékařem včetně endonazálního vyšetření optikou. Subjektivní hodnocení čichu nesmí být bráno samostatně pro slabou výpovědní hodnotu. Psychofyzikální testy slouží v klinické a výzkumné části, mají být validizovány a vužívat práh, identifikaci a diskriminaci. Celkové vyšetření chemosenzorické percepce má obsahovat screening chuti. Čichový trénink může pomoci u pacientů s poruchou čichu různých etiologií. Závěr: Věříme, že dokument podpoří klinické a vědecké pracovníky k využití s cílem najít společný jazyk a tím zvýšit kvalitu metodiky, konzistence a zobecnění práce v této oblasti.

Olfactory dysfunction is an increasingly recognised condition, associated with reduced quality of life and major health outcomes such as neurodegeneration and death. However, translational research in this field is limited by heterogeneity in methodological approach, including definitions of impairment, improvement and appropriate assessment techniques. Accordingly, effective treatments for smell loss are limited. In an effort to encourage high quality and comparable work in this field, among others, we propose the following ideas and recommendations. Whilst the full set of recommendations are outlined in the main document, points include the following: • Patients with suspected olfactory loss should undergo a full examination of the head and neck, including rigid nasal endoscopy with small diameter endoscopes. • Subjective olfactory assessment should not be undertaken in isolation, given its poor reliability. • Psychophysical assessment tools used in clinical and research settings should include reliable and validated tests of odour threshold, and/or one of odour identification or discrimination. • Comprehensive chemosensory assessment should include gustatory screening. • Smell training can be helpful in patients with olfactory loss of several aetiologies.

Background: Olfactory dysfunction is an increasingly recognised condition, associated with reduced quality of life and major health outcomes such as neurodegeneration and death. However, translational research in this field is limited by heterogeneity in methodological approach, including definitions of impairment, improvement and appropriate assessment techniques. Accordingly, effective treatments for smell loss are limited. In an effort to encourage high quality and comparable work in this field, among others, we propose the following ideas and recommendations. Whilst the full set of recommendations are outlined in the main document, points include the following: Patients with suspected olfactory loss should undergo a full examination of the head and neck, including rigid nasal endoscopy with small diameter endoscopes. Subjective olfactory assessment should not be undertaken in isolation, given its poor reliability. Psychophysical assessment tools used in clinical and research settings should include reliable and validated tests of odour threshold, and/or one of odour identification or discrimination. Comprehensive chemosensory assessment should include gustatory screening. Smell training can be helpful in patients with olfactory loss of several aetiologies. Conclusions: We hope the current manuscript will encourage clinicians and researchers to adopt a common language, and in so doing, increase the methodological quality, consistency and generalisability of work in this field.