Confirmed central olfactory system lesions on brain MRI in COVID-19 patients with anosmia: a case-series
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Objective
Anosmia has been listed as a key-symptom associated with the COVID-19 infection. Because it often occurs without any sign of rhinitis, lesions of the central olfactory system have been suspected. To date, however, there is no evidence that anosmia caused by SARS-CoV2 could be the result of brain damage.
Methods
We conducted a case-series on 10 consecutive COVID-19 patients who reported anosmia. Each patient prospectively underwent a validated olfactory test (Sniffin’ Sticks test) and a brain MRI. Results Hypersignal intensity lesions of the central olfactory system were found in 3 subjects on 3D T2 FLAIR and 2D T2 High Resolution images with a lesion involving the olfactory bulbs and/or the orbitofrontal cortex. These 3 subjects showed a severe and persistent loss of smell on the olfactory test. Mucosal hyperplasia of the upper nasal cavities was found in two other subjects with significant smell disorders. There was no MRI anomaly in two subjects with good smell restoration.
Conclusions
Anomalies of the central olfactory system could be responsible for anosmia in patients with COVID-19 infection. Further studies are needed to assess the impact on long-term functional prognosis of these lesions.
Key Result
Central anomalies of the olfactory bulb and cortex could be responsible for anosmia in COVID-19 infection
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.08.20148692: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement IRB: Ethics: The study was approved by the institutional review board of YG and GC hospital.
Consent: Written informed consent was obtained for all study participants.Randomization not detected. Blinding Readers were blinded from clinical patients’ features. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not 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: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We …SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.08.20148692: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement IRB: Ethics: The study was approved by the institutional review board of YG and GC hospital.
Consent: Written informed consent was obtained for all study participants.Randomization not detected. Blinding Readers were blinded from clinical patients’ features. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not 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: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.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.
-