Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T06:06:29.810Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Olfactory disorders in coronavirus disease 2019 patients: a systematic literature review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2020

E Fuccillo*
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Sciences and Translational Medicine, ‘Tor Vergata’ University of Rome, Italy
A M Saibene
Affiliation:
Department of Health Sciences, University of Milan, Italy
M P Canevini
Affiliation:
Department of Health Sciences, University of Milan, Italy
G Felisati
Affiliation:
Department of Health Sciences, University of Milan, Italy
*
Author for correspondence: Dr Emanuela Fuccillo, Otorhinolaryngology Unit, Head and Neck Department, ASST Santi Paolo e Carlo Hospital, Via A. di Rudinì, 8, 20142Milan, Italy E-mail: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

Recent scientific literature has widely described a possible major role of smell dysfunction as a specific symptom of coronavirus disease 2019. This systematic review may provide a more holistic approach to current knowledge of the disease.

Methods

A systematic review was completed using Embase, PubMed and Web of Science databases that considered original articles focused on olfactory evaluation in coronavirus disease 2019 patients, published between March and May 2020, in English language.

Results

From the 483 research papers initially identified, 32 original studies were selected, comprising a total of 17 306 subjects with a laboratory confirmed diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019. Individual study sample sizes ranged from 6 to 6452 patients. This comprehensive analysis confirmed that olfactory disorders represent an important clinical feature in coronavirus disease 2019, with a prevalence of 11–100 per cent in included patients, although there was heterogeneity in terms of assessment tools and population selection criteria.

Conclusion

The results indicate that an accurate clinical evaluation should be carried out using structured questionnaires and tests with olfactory substances.

Type
Review Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Introduction

Infection by the new pathogen severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) has highlighted a possible major role of chemosensory dysfunction, with a particular reference to smell disorders, often in association with taste disorders.Reference Hopkins and Kumar1,Reference Yan, Faraji, Prajapati, Boone and DeConde2

Focusing on smell impairment, it is known that post-viral anosmia could be a fairly common sequela of upper airway disease.Reference Seiden3 However, the clinical presentation of smell disorders during coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) does not seem to be ‘univocal’, ranging from patient reports of normal smell, to reports of partial loss of smell (hyposmia) or total loss of smell (anosmia), or even altered perception of smell (dysosmia).

Many research teams have evaluated olfactory dysfunction in patients affected by Covid-19, highlighting a possible role of the viral invasion of the olfactory bulb by SARS-CoV-2 as the main aetiopathogenic mechanism of olfactory dysfunction.Reference Butowt and Bilinska4 Bulfamante et al. recently described the autoptic presence of numerous particles, likely referable to virions of SARS-CoV-2, at the level of the olfactory nerve.Reference Bulfamante, Chiumello, Canevini, Priori, Mazzanti and Centanni5

However, it remains difficult to establish the exact prevalence of smell disorders, the expected timing of onset, the smell outcome, the associated risk factors, the relationship with taste disorders and, above all, the aetiopathogenetic mechanisms of damage.

A small number of systematic reviewsReference Tong, Wong, Zhu, Fastenberg and Tham6Reference Soler, Patel, Turner and Holbrook12 have been published already, during the early stages of the pandemic in Europe and USA. However, in light of continuous scientific updating, we believe that our study can provide a more holistic approach to current knowledge of the disease. Furthermore, we believe that accurate identification of an olfactory disorder and its characteristics could facilitate our understanding of pathogenetic mechanisms, with particular reference to possible involvement of the central nervous system, thus ultimately enhancing our wider understanding of the role of smell dysfunction in Covid-19.

Materials and methods

This research was conducted using PubMed, Embase and Web of Science databases (Table 1), focusing on papers published up to 31th May 2020. The search was carried out according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (‘PRISMA’) reporting guidelines,Reference Liberati, Altman, Tetzlaff, Mulrow, Gotzsche and Ioannidis13 as shown in Figure 1. Specifically, we performed a systematic electronic search of original articles published between March and May 2020, in English language, considering studies focused on olfactory evaluation in Covid-19 patients. Although there are many studies that consider smell dysfunction in patients affected by Covid-19, we chose to specifically consider only those which carried out an in-depth assessment focused on chemosensory disorders, particularly smell impairment, in Covid-19 patients.

Table 1. Summary of search strategies

Fig. 1. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (‘PRISMA’) flowchart.

Inclusion criteria were: a laboratory confirmed diagnosis of Covid-19 infection; and the presence of a smell evaluation assessed through anamnestic and/or database data collection, a simple survey, a validated questionnaire focused on olfactory ability, and/or chemosensitive tests with odorants. We excluded from our investigation all systematic and narrative reviews, case reports, and all studies without specific data on patients affected by Covid-19. For a more precise analysis, we also excluded studies in which the patient's setting and/or smell evaluation method was not clearly explained.

The references of review articles were checked for cross-referencing purposes. The research process was conducted by two different authors (EF and AMS). Disagreements regarding the final selection of studies were discussed by the two authors and a final consensus was reached.

For each included article, we recorded: the number of Covid-19 patients, the number of patients with olfactory dysfunction, the country (and city if available) in which the study was performed, the type of study, patients’ data, the adopted method for smell evaluation (anamnestic data collection, simple survey, elaborated questionnaire focused on olfactory ability and/or chemosensitive tests with odorant), the time of evaluation, the time of disease onset, the concomitant evaluation of taste disorders, the patient setting (in-patient and/or out-patient) and evaluation results.

The selected studies were assessed for quality and methodological bias using the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Study Quality Assessment Tools.14 The level of evidence was assessed according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine level of evidence guide.15

Patients, intervention, comparison and outcomes criteria

The patients, intervention, comparison and outcomes (‘PICO’) criteria for the review were considered as follows: (1) patients – patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection certified on laboratory tests who underwent a clinical evaluation of smell impairment using anamnestic data, a smell questionnaire and/or olfactory tests; (2) intervention – clinical evaluation of olfactory disorders; (3) comparison – different methods of evaluating olfactory function (subjective and objective); and (4) outcome – prevalence and characteristics of olfactory dysfunction in Covid-19 patients.

Results

Of the 483 research papers initially identified, 32 original studies were finally selected, comprising a total of 17 306 subjects with a laboratory confirmed diagnosis of Covid-19. Individual study sample sizes ranged from 6 to 6452 patients. The studies’ characteristics are described in Table 2.Reference Yan, Faraji, Prajapati, Boone and DeConde2,Reference Aggarwal, Garcia-Telles, Aggarwal, Lavie, Lippi and Henry16Reference Zayet, Klopfenstein, Mercier, Kadiane-Oussou, Lan Cheong Wah and Royer46 Over half of the selected studies were carried out in European countries.

Table 2. Summary of included studies

Covid-19 = coronavirus disease 2019; NHI-SQAT = National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Study Quality Assessment Tools

Olfactory ability was assessed by: using validated questionnaires focused on smell dysfunction, in three studies; obtaining objective information on smell impairment through standardised chemosensitive tests with odorants, in five studies; and considering both methods, in five studies (Table 3).Reference Carignan, Valiquette, Grenier, Musonera, Nkengurutse and Marcil-Héguy18,Reference Hornuss, Lange, Schröter, Rieg, Kern and Wagner20,Reference Lechien, Chiesa-Estomba, De Siati, Horoi, Le Bon and Rodriguez24Reference Lechien, Cabaraux, Chiesa-Estomba, Khalife, Hans and Calvo-Henriquez26,Reference Li, Long, Zhu, Wang, Wang and Lin29,Reference Moein, Hashemian, Mansourafshar, Khorram-Tousi, Tabarsi and Doty32,Reference Ottaviano, Carecchio, Scarpa and Marchese-Ragona34,Reference Spinato, Fabbris, Polesel, Cazzador, Borsetto and Hopkins37,Reference Tsivgoulis, Fragkou, Delides, Karofylakis, Dimopoulou and Sfikakis40Reference Vaira, Salzano, Petrocelli, Deiana, Salzano and De Riu43,Reference Zou, Linden, Cuevas, Metasch, Welge-Lüssen and Hähner47Reference Veyseller, Ozucer, Karaaltin, Yildirim, Degirmenci and Aksoy59 The remaining studies assessed olfactory ability through anamnestic data collection, simple surveys and/or structured, non-validated questionnaires (Table 4).Reference Yan, Faraji, Prajapati, Boone and DeConde2,Reference Aggarwal, Garcia-Telles, Aggarwal, Lavie, Lippi and Henry16,Reference Beltrán-Corbellini, Chico-García, Martínez-Poles, Rodríguez-Jorge and Alonso-Cánovas17,Reference Giacomelli, Pezzati, Conti, Bernacchia, Siano and Oreni19,Reference Chua AJ, Chan EC, Loh and Charn21Reference Klopfenstein, Kadiane-Oussou, Toko, Royer, Lepiller and Gendrin23,Reference Lechien, Chiesa-Estomba, Place, Laethem, Cabaraux and Mat27,Reference Lee, Min, Lee and Kim28,Reference Luers, Rokohl, Loreck, Wawer Matos, Augustin and Dewald30,Reference Menni, Valdes, Freidin, Sudre, Nguyen and Drew31,Reference Noh, Yoon, Seong, Choi, Sohn and Cheong33,Reference Paderno, Schreiber, Grammatica, Raffetti, Tomasoni and Gualtieri35,Reference Speth, Singer-Cornelius, Obere, Gengler, Brockmeier and Sedaghat36,Reference Tostmann, Bradley, Bousema, Yiek, Holwerda and Bleeker-Rovers38,Reference Trubiano, Vogrin, Kwong and Homes39,Reference Wee, Chan, Teo, Cherng, Thien and Wong44Reference Zayet, Klopfenstein, Mercier, Kadiane-Oussou, Lan Cheong Wah and Royer46

Table 3. Summary of smell-related outcomes assessed via validated questionnaires and/or objective tests

IQR = interquartile range; Covid-19 = coronavirus disease 2019; SARS-CoV-2 = severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2; N/A = not applicable; ICU = intensive care unit; sQOD-NS = short version of the Questionnaire of Olfactory Disorders – Negative Statements (a seven-item patient-reported outcome questionnaire including social, eating, annoyance and anxiety questions; NAHNES = National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey; SD = standard deviation; UPSIT = University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test; PROM = patient-reported outcome measures; SNOT-22 = Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22; VAS = visual analogue scale; ARTIQ = Acute Respiratory Tract Infection Questionnaire; Q-SIT = Quick Smell Identification Test; CCCRC = Connecticut Chemosensory Clinical Research Center

Table 4. Summary of smell-related outcomes assessed via anamnestic data collection, simple surveys and/or non-validated questionnaires

N/A = not applicable; IQR = interquartile range; Covid-19 = coronavirus disease 2019

Discussion

Our review confirmed that olfactory disorders represent an important clinical feature in individuals affected by Covid-19, with a prevalence ranging from 11 per cent to 100 per cent of included patients, although there was heterogeneity in terms of assessment tools and population selection criteria.

The reported data show that smell dysfunction was, overall, more prevalent in patients investigated with validated questionnaires and/or tests with odorants (Table 3), compared to individuals evaluated using anamnestic data, simple surveys and/or non-validated questionnaires. This is in agreement with the findings of Moein et al.Reference Moein, Hashemian, Mansourafshar, Khorram-Tousi, Tabarsi and Doty32 and further studies,Reference Soter, Kim, Jackman, Tourbier, Kaul and Doty60 which indicate that self-reported evaluations of olfactory loss are not in line with the more reliable outcomes of standardised tests. There are exceptions to this general trend, however, as highlighted by the papers of Lechien et al.Reference Lechien, Cabaraux, Chiesa-Estomba, Khalife, Hans and Calvo-Henriquez26 and Li et al.,Reference Li, Long, Zhu, Wang, Wang and Lin29 but in these latter manuscripts there are some possible biases that may affect the data.

The variations in reported outcomes may be a result of the different methods of evaluation; however, the variations might also be because of other important factors. Primarily, non-validated tests are only focused on smell disorders of new onset and do not investigate the presence of olfactory dysfunction prior to Covid-19. In contrast, a validated questionnaire and/or objective olfactory test allows greater accuracy regarding the real prevalence of olfactory disorders, the exact timing of onset and their characteristics.

Furthermore, our analysis does not suggest any significant differences in terms of the age or gender of the enrolled subjects, although younger patients often seem to show a greater prevalence of smell disorders than older ones. These data seem difficult to understand until we consider that the elderly population has a higher prevalence of smell disorders overall. In the context of Covid-19, younger patients are more likely to have a new onset of olfactory dysfunction (more evident with a non-validated questionnaire analysis), and frequently have less severe respiratory symptoms, resulting in more susceptibility to olfactory problems. Therefore, we believe that age should be considered as a possible bias, at least regarding the elderly population, given that the estimated prevalence of smell impairment in the general population aged above 80 years ranges between 43.1 per cent and 84.9 per cent.Reference Doty61

Regarding the hospital setting, our review highlighted a lower prevalence of smell disorders in hospitalised patients compared with home-quarantined patients. Two studies focused specifically on this comparison,Reference Yan, Faraji, Prajapati, Boone and DeConde2,Reference Paderno, Schreiber, Grammatica, Raffetti, Tomasoni and Gualtieri35 emphasising a greater prevalence of the disorder in individuals with low-to-mild disease compared to those who needed hospital treatment. Once again, this difference could be related to greater attention devoted to olfactory impairment in patients in an overall better health condition.

Another relevant source of heterogeneity is linked to the different timings of smell evaluation with respect to the onset of symptoms. According to our data, smell dysfunction seems to occur mostly in early stages of the disease, and tends to decrease or resolve within the two weeks following virologic healing in the majority of the patients; therefore, all evaluations that take place during an advanced or unspecified disease stage could underestimate olfactory dysfunction.

Finally, we should consider that the large prevalence of smell disorders apparently became evident only when the SARS-CoV-2 infection hit Europe. In the first studies performed in China and Singapore, patients were frequently unaware of olfactory dysfunction.Reference Guan, Ni and Hu62Reference Pung, Chiew, Young, Chin, Chen and Clapham64 It is striking that more than half of the reviewed studies were carried out in European countries. This could be related to a higher prevalence of Covid-19 associated smell disorders in Caucasian people, although other factors should be taken into account. A possible bias could be presented by the fact that some scientific reports are written in original Chinese language and are difficult to access. In addition, we should bear in mind that – with the exception of China – the scholarly production on Covid-19 and olfactory dysfunction follows the outbreak spread, which is already peaking in Europe and Western Asia, has flourished in North America and is in an earlier stage in South America.

While these data confirm what has already been included in earlier reviews, our paper is able to present a somewhat later analysis of the issue of smell impairment in Covid-19. It discusses more complete and well-defined data than other previously published papers, and includes a significantly greater number of patients.

Nevertheless, many problems need to be addressed to allow a holistic evaluation of smell impairments in Covid-19 patients. In order to allow further and stronger meta-analytic papers, smell assessment tools should converge into validated questionnaires and odorant tests. In addition, important reported biases (e.g. age, hospital setting and patients’ overall condition) should be appropriately addressed in the context of well-designed future prospective studies.

Conclusion

In the wake of the relevance of olfactory dysfunction in individuals with Covid-19, we believe that olfactory assessment is essential in every patient with a new diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the early stage. Furthermore, we think that smell disorders of new onset should be considered a possible symptom for suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection. Our study suggests the need for a clinical standardised evaluation carried out using structured questionnaires and, if possible, tests with olfactory substances. Finally, ENT assessment in Covid-19 patients should be routinely proposed to ensure the correct evaluation of chemosensitive disorders and the possible need for therapeutic strategies.

Competing interests

None declared

Footnotes

Dr E Fuccillo takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

References

Hopkins, C, Kumar, N. Loss of Sense of Smell as Marker of COVID-19 Infection. London: ENT UK, Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2020Google Scholar
Yan, CH, Faraji, F, Prajapati, DP, Boone, CE, DeConde, AS. Association of chemosensory dysfunction and Covid-19 in patients presenting with influenza-like symptoms. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 2020;10:806–13CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seiden, AM. Postviral olfactory loss. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2004;37:1159–66CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Butowt, R, Bilinska, K. SARS-CoV-2: olfaction, brain infection, and the urgent need for clinical samples allowing earlier virus detection. ACS Chem Neurosci 2020;11:1200–3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bulfamante, G, Chiumello, D, Canevini, MP, Priori, A, Mazzanti, M, Centanni, S et al. First ultrastructural autoptic findings of SARS-Cov-2 in olfactory pathways and brainstem. Minerva Anestesiol 2020;86:678–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tong, JY, Wong, A, Zhu, D, Fastenberg, JH, Tham, T. The prevalence of olfactory and gustatory dysfunction in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2020;163:311CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krajewska, J, Krajewski, W, Zub, K, Zatoński, T. COVID-19 in otolaryngologist practice: a review of current knowledge. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2020;277:1885–97CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lovato, A, De Filippis, C. Clinical presentation of COVID-19: a systematic review focusing on upper airway symptoms. Ear Nose Throat J 2020;13:145561320920762. Epub 2020 Apr 13Google Scholar
Pellegrino, R, Cooper, KW, Di Pizio, A, Joseph, PV, Bhutani, S, Parma, V. Corona viruses and the chemical senses: past, present, and future. Chem Senses 2020;14:bjaa031Google Scholar
Printza, A, Constantinidis, J. The role of self-reported smell and taste disorders in suspected COVID-19. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2020;277:2625–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sedaghat, AR, Gengler, I, Speth, MM. Olfactory dysfunction: a highly prevalent symptom of COVID-19 with public health significance. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2020;163:1215CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Soler, ZM, Patel, ZM, Turner, JH, Holbrook, EH. A primer on viral-associated olfactory loss in the era of COVID-19. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 2020;10:814–20CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liberati, A, Altman, DG, Tetzlaff, J, Mulrow, C, Gotzsche, PC, Ioannidis, JPA et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 2009;339:b2700CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI). Study Quality Assessment Tools. In: https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/study-quality-assessment-tools [8 September 2020]Google Scholar
Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. OCEBM Levels of Evidence. In: https://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=5653Website [8 September 2020]Google Scholar
Aggarwal, S, Garcia-Telles, N, Aggarwal, G, Lavie, C, Lippi, G, Henry, BM. Clinical features, laboratory characteristics, and outcomes of patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): early report from the United States. Diagnosis (Berl) 2020;7:91–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beltrán-Corbellini, Á, Chico-García, JL, Martínez-Poles, J, Rodríguez-Jorge, F, Alonso-Cánovas, A. Acute-onset smell and taste disorders in the context of COVID-19: a pilot multicentre polymerase chain reaction based case-control study. Eur J Neurol 2020. Epub 2020 May 16Google ScholarPubMed
Carignan, A, Valiquette, L, Grenier, C, Musonera, JB, Nkengurutse, D, Marcil-Héguy, A et al. Anosmia and dysgeusia associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection: an age-matched case-control study. CMAJ 2020;192:E702–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giacomelli, A, Pezzati, L, Conti, F, Bernacchia, D, Siano, M, Oreni, L et al. Self-reported olfactory and taste disorders in SARS-CoV-2 patients: a cross-sectional study. Clin Infect Dis 2020;71:889–90CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hornuss, D, Lange, B, Schröter, N, Rieg, S, Kern, WN, Wagner, D. Anosmia in COVID-19 patients. Clin Microbiol Infect 2020. Epub 2020 May 22CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chua AJ, Kai, Chan EC, Yun, Loh, JP, Charn, TC. Acute olfactory loss is specific for Covid-19 at the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med 2020. Epub 2020 May 14Google ScholarPubMed
Kim, GU, Kim, MJ, Ra, SH, Lee, J, Bae, S, Jung, J et al. Clinical characteristics of asymptomatic and symptomatic patients with mild COVID-19. Clin Microbiol Infect 2020;26:948.e1948.e3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klopfenstein, T, Kadiane-Oussou, NJ, Toko, L, Royer, PY, Lepiller, Q, Gendrin, V et al. Features of anosmia in COVID-19. Med Mal Infect 2020;50:436–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lechien, JR, Chiesa-Estomba, CM, De Siati, DR, Horoi, M, Le Bon, SD, Rodriguez, A et al. Olfactory and gustatory dysfunctions as a clinical presentation of mild-to-moderate forms of the coronavirus disease (COVID19): a multicenter European study. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2020;277:2251–61CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lechien, JR, Chiesa-Estomba, CM, Hans, S, Barillari, MR, Jouffe, L, Saussez, S. Loss of smell and taste in 2013 European patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Ann Intern Med 2020. Epub 2020 May 26CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lechien, JR, Cabaraux, P, Chiesa-Estomba, CM, Khalife, M, Hans, S, Calvo-Henriquez, C et al. Objective olfactory evaluation of self-reported loss of smell in a case series of 86 COVID-19 patients. Head Neck 2020;42:1583–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lechien, JR, Chiesa-Estomba, CM, Place, S, Laethem, YV, Cabaraux, P, Mat, Q et al. Clinical and epidemiological characteristics of 1420 European patients with mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019. J Intern Med 2020;288:335–44CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, Y, Min, P, Lee, S, Kim, SW. Prevalence and duration of acute loss of smell or taste in COVID-19 patients. J Korean Med Sci 2020;35:e174CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, J, Long, X, Zhu, C, Wang, H, Wang, T, Lin, Z et al. Olfactory dysfunction in recovered coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. Mov Disord 2020;35:1100–110.1002/mds.28172CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luers, JC, Rokohl, AC, Loreck, N, Wawer Matos, PA, Augustin, M, Dewald, F et al. . Olfactory and gustatory dysfunction in coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19). Clin Infect Dis 2020. Epub 2020 May 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menni, C, Valdes, AM, Freidin, MB, Sudre, CH, Nguyen, LH, Drew, DA et al. Real-time tracking of self-reported symptoms to predict potential COVID-19. Nat Med 2020;26:1037–40CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moein, ST, Hashemian, SMR, Mansourafshar, B, Khorram-Tousi, A, Tabarsi, P, Doty, RL. Smell dysfunction: a biomarker for COVID-19. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 2020;10:944–50CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Noh, JY, Yoon, JG, Seong, H, Choi, WS, Sohn, JW, Cheong, HJ et al. Asymptomatic infection and atypical manifestations of COVID-19: comparison of viral shedding duration. J Infect 2020. Epub 2020 May 21CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ottaviano, G, Carecchio, M, Scarpa, B, Marchese-Ragona, R. Olfactory and rhinological evaluations in SARS-CoV-2 patients complaining of olfactory loss. Rhinology 2020;58:400–1Google ScholarPubMed
Paderno, A, Schreiber, A, Grammatica, A, Raffetti, E, Tomasoni, M, Gualtieri, T et al. Smell and taste alterations in Covid-19: a cross-sectional analysis of different cohorts. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 2020;10:955–62CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Speth, MM, Singer-Cornelius, T, Obere, M, Gengler, I, Brockmeier, SJ, Sedaghat, AR. Olfactory dysfunction and sinonasal symptomatology in COVID-19: prevalence, severity, timing, and associated characteristics. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2020;163:114–20CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spinato, G, Fabbris, C, Polesel, J, Cazzador, D, Borsetto, D, Hopkins, C et al. Alterations in smell or taste in mildly symptomatic outpatients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. JAMA 2020;323:2089–90CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tostmann, A, Bradley, J, Bousema, T, Yiek, WK, Holwerda, M, Bleeker-Rovers, C et al. Strong associations and moderate predictive value of early symptoms for SARS-CoV-2 test positivity among healthcare workers, the Netherlands, March 2020. Euro Surveill 2020;25:2000508CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trubiano, JA, Vogrin, S, Kwong, JC, Homes, N. Alterations in smell or taste - classic COVID-19? Clin Infect Dis 2020. Epub 2020 May 28Google Scholar
Tsivgoulis, G, Fragkou, PC, Delides, A, Karofylakis, E, Dimopoulou, D, Sfikakis, PP et al. Quantitative evaluation of olfactory dysfunction in hospitalized patients with coronavirus [2] (COVID-19). J Neurol 2020;267:2193–510.1007/s00415-020-09935-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaira, LA, Hopkins, C, Salzano, G, Petrocelli, M, Melis, A, Cucurullo, M et al. Olfactory and gustatory function impairment in COVID-19 patients: Italian objective multicenter-study. Head Neck 2020;42:1560–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vaira, LA, Deiana, G, Fois, AG, Pirina, P, Madeddu, G, De Vito, A et al. Objective evaluation of anosmia and ageusia in COVID-19 patients: single-center experience on 72 cases. Head Neck 2020;42:1252–810.1002/hed.26204CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vaira, LA, Salzano, G, Petrocelli, M, Deiana, G, Salzano, FA, De Riu, G. Validation of a self-administered olfactory and gustatory test for the remotely evaluation of COVID-19 patients in home quarantine. Head Neck 2020;42:1570–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wee, LE, Chan, YFZ, Teo, NWY, Cherng, BPZ, Thien, SY, Wong, HM et al. The role of self-reported olfactory and gustatory dysfunction as a screening criterion for suspected COVID-19. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2020;277:2389–90CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yan, CH, Faraji, F, Prajapati, DP, Ostrander, BT, DeConde, AS. Self-reported olfactory loss associates with outpatient clinical course in Covid-19. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 2020;10:821–31CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zayet, S, Klopfenstein, T, Mercier, J, Kadiane-Oussou, NJ, Lan Cheong Wah, L, Royer, PY, et al. Contribution of anosmia and dysgeusia for diagnostic of COVID-19 in outpatients. Infection 2020. Epub 2020 May 14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zou, LQ, Linden, L, Cuevas, M, Metasch, ML, Welge-Lüssen, A, Hähner, A et al. Self-reported Mini Olfactory Questionnaire (Self-MOQ): a simple and useful measurement for the screening of olfactory dysfunction. Laryngoscope 2019. Epub 2019 Nov 20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hummel, T, Konnerth, C-G, Rosenheim, K, Kobal, G. Screening of olfactory function with a four-minute odor identification test: reliability, normative data, and investigations in patients with olfactory loss. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2001;110:976–81CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hinz, A, Luck, T, Riedel-Heller, SG, Herzberg, PY, Rolffs, C, Wirkner, K et al. Olfactory dysfunction: properties of the Sniffin’ Sticks Screening 12 test and associations with quality of life. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2019;276:389–95CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mattos, JL, Edwards, C, Schlosser, RJ, Hyer, M, Mace, JC, Smith, TL et al. A brief version of the questionnaire of olfactory disorders in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 2019;9:1144–50CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rawal, S, Hoffman, HJ, Bainbridge, KE, Huedo-Medina, TB, Duffy, VB. Prevalence and risk factors of self-reported smell and taste alterations: results from the 2011–2012 US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Chem Senses 2016;41:6976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okutani, F, Hirose, K, Kobayashi, T, Kaba, H, Hyodo, M. Evaluation of “Open Essence” odor-identification test card by application to healthy volunteers. Auris Nasus Larynx 2013;40:7680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doty, RL, Agrawal, U. The shelf life of the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT). Laryngoscope 1989;99:402–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMahon, C, Scadding, GK. Le Nez du Vin--a quick test of olfaction. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 1996;2:278–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rimmer, J, Hellings, P, Lund, VJ, Alobid, I, Beale, T, Dassi, C et al. European position paper on diagnostic tools in rhinology. Rhinology 2019;57(suppl S28):141CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aabenhus, R, Thorsen, H, Siersma, V, Brodersen, J. The development and validation of a multidimensional sum-scaling questionnaire to measure patient-reported outcomes in acute respiratory tract infections in primary care: the Acute Respiratory Tract Infection Questionnaire. Value Health 2013;16:987–92CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jackman, AH, Doty, RL. Utility of a three-item smell identification test in detecting olfactory dysfunction. Laryngoscope 2005;115:2209–12CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cain, WS, Gent, JF, Goodspeed, RB, Leonard, G. Evaluation of olfactory dysfunction in the Connecticut chemosensory clinical research center. Laryngoscope 1988;98:83–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Veyseller, B, Ozucer, B, Karaaltin, AB, Yildirim, Y, Degirmenci, N, Aksoy, F et al. Connecticut (CCCRC) olfactory test: normative values in 426 healthy volunteers. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2014;66:31–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Soter, A, Kim, J, Jackman, A, Tourbier, I, Kaul, A, Doty, RL. Accuracy of self-report in detecting taste dysfunction. Laryngoscope 2008;118:611–17CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doty, RL. Epidemiology of smell and taste dysfunction. Handb Clin Neurol 2019;164:313CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guan, WJ, Ni, ZY, Hu, Y. Clinical characteristics of coronavirus disease 2019 in China. N Engl J Med 2020;382:1708–20CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yang, X, Yu, Y, Xu, J, Liang, WH, Ou, CQ, He, JX et al. Clinical course and outcomes of critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a single-centered, retrospective, observational study. Lancet Respir Med 2020;8:475–81CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pung, R, Chiew, CJ, Young, BE, Chin, S, Chen, MIC, Clapham, HE et al. Investigation of three clusters of COVID-19 in Singapore: implications for surveillance and response measures. Lancet 2020;395:1039–46CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Table 1. Summary of search strategies

Figure 1

Fig. 1. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (‘PRISMA’) flowchart.

Figure 2

Table 2. Summary of included studies

Figure 3

Table 3. Summary of smell-related outcomes assessed via validated questionnaires and/or objective tests

Figure 4

Table 4. Summary of smell-related outcomes assessed via anamnestic data collection, simple surveys and/or non-validated questionnaires