Self-reported smell and taste recovery in coronavirus disease 2019 patients: a one-year prospective study

  1. Paolo Boscolo-Rizzo
  2. Francesco Guida
  3. Jerry Polesel
  4. Alberto Vito Marcuzzo
  5. Paolo Antonucci
  6. Vincenzo Capriotti
  7. Erica Sacchet
  8. Fiordaliso Cragnolini
  9. Andrea D’Alessandro
  10. Enrico Zanelli
  11. Riccardo Marzolino
  12. Chiara Lazzarin
  13. Margherita Tofanelli
  14. Nicoletta Gardenal
  15. Daniele Borsetto
  16. Claire Hopkins
  17. Luigi Angelo Vaira
  18. Giancarlo Tirelli

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1007/s00405-021-06839-w
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.03.18.21253862: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Friuli Venezia Giulia Region (CEUR-2020-Os-156), and informed consent was obtained verbally for telephone interviews.
    Consent: The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Friuli Venezia Giulia Region (CEUR-2020-Os-156), and informed consent was obtained verbally for telephone interviews.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    The data form the present study should be taken cautiously owing to several study limitations. Symptoms were self-reported, based on cross-sectional surveys, and may therefore contain suboptimal sensitivity. Subjective evaluation of the olfactory function was observed, indeed, to be inadequate to fully evaluate olfactory recovery with several authors having underlined that subjectivity of self-reporting may lead to underestimation of the prevalence of olfactory dysfunction. It is clear that patients’ rating of whether smell and or taste are impacted differentially is very difficult to interpret, due to impact of loss perception of flavour through retronasal olfaction, and little can be inferred from this aspect of the study. Moreover, the study cohort was relatively small and patients with more severe COVID-19 were excluded. In conclusion, a substantial proportion of patients with previous mild-to-moderate symptomatic COVID-19 characterized by new onset of chemosensory dysfunction still complained on altered sense of smell or taste one-year after the onset. As recovery from post-viral loss may continue beyond this period [6,15], further assessments will be necessary to conclude whether smell and taste dysfunction is permanent. Moreover, there is urgent need for more efforts and research on treatment strategies for post-COVID-19 chemosensory dysfunction.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.03.18.21253862 on medRxiv