Proof-of-concept: SCENTinel 1.1 rapidly discriminates COVID-19-related olfactory disorders

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article

Abstract

It is estimated that 20%–67% of those with COVID-19 develop olfactory disorders, depending on the SARS-CoV-2 variant. However, there is an absence of quick, population-wide olfactory tests to screen for olfactory disorders. The purpose of this study was to provide a proof-of-concept that SCENTinel 1.1, a rapid, inexpensive, population-wide olfactory test, can discriminate between anosmia (total smell loss), hyposmia (reduced sense of smell), parosmia (distorted odor perception), and phantosmia (odor sensation without a source). Participants were mailed a SCENTinel 1.1 test, which measures odor detection, intensity, identification, and pleasantness, using one of 4 possible odors. Those who completed the test (N = 287) were divided into groups based on their self-reported olfactory function: quantitative olfactory disorder only (anosmia or hyposmia, N = 135), qualitative olfactory disorder only (parosmia and/or phantosmia; N = 86), and normosmia (normal sense of smell; N = 66). SCENTinel 1.1 accurately discriminates quantitative olfactory disorders, qualitative olfactory disorders, and normosmia groups. When olfactory disorders were assessed individually, SCENTinel 1.1 discriminates between hyposmia, parosmia, and anosmia. Participants with parosmia rated common odors less pleasant than those without parosmia. We provide proof-of-concept that SCENTinel 1.1, a rapid smell test, can discriminate quantitative and qualitative olfactory disorders, and is the only direct test to rapidly discriminate parosmia.

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2022.03.23.22272807: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.


    Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your code and data.


    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Limitations: Participants were grouped based on their self-reported olfactory disorders. It is possible that participants did not accurately classify their olfactory disorder (7,58). To limit inaccurate data, we asked specific questions describing their smell loss (Figure 1) and excluded participants whose self-reported olfactory disorder did not fit conventional categories (i.e. someone who reported having both anosmia and hyposmia). An area of future research is to directly screen for smell function with another validated smell test to classify participants’ smell function more accurately to better understand how they perform differently on SCENTinel test versions. Granted, there are no direct, validated tests that diagnose parosmia aside from SCENTinel 1.1. Until then, in-depth interviews would be necessary. Another limitation of this study is that COVID-19 test results were also self-reported. However, participants in this study were recruited from a Facebook group specifically for those with smell loss from COVID-19, and specific questions describing the cause of their smell loss (In your opinion, what might have been the cause of your smell loss? Selected “COVID-19”), and their COVID-19 test results (What was the test result? 1) Selected “Positive Lab Test (COVID+)”) were included to eliminate participants who had smell loss unrelated to COVID-19 and reduce heterogeneity. Nevertheless, SCENTinel 1.1 was designed to screen for olfactory disorders regardless of the etiolo...

    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.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.


    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.