Author: Saniasiaya, Jeyasakthy; Islam, Md Asiful; Abdullah, Baharudin
Title: Prevalence of Olfactory Dysfunction in Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVIDâ€19): A Metaâ€analysis of 27,492 Patients Cord-id: 14f08ixd Document date: 2020_12_5
ID: 14f08ixd
Snippet: OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Olfactory dysfunction has been observed as one of the clinical manifestations in COVIDâ€19 patients. We aimed to conduct a systematic review and metaâ€analysis to estimate the overall pooled prevalence of olfactory dysfunction in COVIDâ€19 patients. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and metaâ€analyses. METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and Google Scholar databases were searched to identify studies published between 1 December 2019 and 23 July 2020. We used
Document: OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Olfactory dysfunction has been observed as one of the clinical manifestations in COVIDâ€19 patients. We aimed to conduct a systematic review and metaâ€analysis to estimate the overall pooled prevalence of olfactory dysfunction in COVIDâ€19 patients. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and metaâ€analyses. METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and Google Scholar databases were searched to identify studies published between 1 December 2019 and 23 July 2020. We used randomâ€effects model to estimate the pooled prevalence with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed using the I (2) statistic and Cochran's Q test. Robustness of the pooled estimates was checked by different subgroup and sensitivity analyses This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020183768). RESULTS: We identified 1162 studies, of which 83 studies (n = 27492, 61.4% female) were included in the metaâ€analysis. Overall, the pooled prevalence of olfactory dysfunction in COVIDâ€19 patients was 47.85% [95% CI: 41.20–54.50]. We observed olfactory dysfunction in 54.40% European, 51.11% North American, 31.39% Asian, and 10.71% Australian COVIDâ€19 patients. Anosmia, hyposmia, and dysosmia were observed in 35.39%, 36.15%, and 2.53% of the patients, respectively. There were discrepancies in the results of studies with objective (higher prevalence) versus subjective (lower prevalence) evaluations. The discrepancy might be due to falseâ€negative reporting observed in selfâ€reported health measures. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of olfactory dysfunction in COVIDâ€19 patients was found to be 47.85% based on highâ€quality evidence. Due to the subjective measures of most studies pooled in the analysis, further studies with objective measures are advocated to confirm the finding. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 Laryngoscope, 2020
Search related documents:
Co phrase search for related documents- abstract title and acute respiratory syndrome: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28
- abstract title and low number: 1, 2, 3
- abstract title and low quality: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15
- abstract title and low quality study: 1
- acute phase and low number: 1, 2
- acute phase and low quality: 1, 2
- acute respiratory syndrome and loss mechanism: 1
- acute respiratory syndrome and low number: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62
- acute respiratory syndrome and low quality: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56
- acute respiratory syndrome and low quality high bias risk: 1, 2
- acute respiratory syndrome and low quality study: 1, 2
- loss mechanism and low quality: 1
Co phrase search for related documents, hyperlinks ordered by date