Advertisement

Olfactory dysfunction and daily life

  • Johannes Frasnelli
  • Thomas Hummel
Rhinology

Abstract

The objective of the present study was to investigate the hypothesis that subjects with parosmia suffer more in their daily life than patients who experience only quantitative olfactory loss. Two hundred five outpatients of the Smell and Taste Clinic and 25 healthy controls were included. The newly developed Questionnaire of Olfactory Disorders (QOD) was administered in combination with other psychometric tests (Beck Depression Inventory, “Befindlichkeitsskala” and the Short Form-36 Health Survey) along with an olfactory test (“Sniffin’ Sticks”). Results of the QOD were found to be an appropriate and valid measure of the impact of olfactory dysfunction on daily life. Patients with parosmia and quantitative olfactory dysfunction show higher rates of daily life complaints when compared to patients suffering from quantitative olfactory impairment only (QOD-PS: P=0.005). In addition, hyposmic and anosmic patients indicated significantly more complaints compared to patients with normosmia. Further, female patients seemed to suffer more from olfactory dysfunction than male patients. In conclusion, the assessment of the degree of qualitative olfactory dysfunction may be possible by the use of instruments based on questionnaires regarding daily life problems.

Keywords

Quality of life Anosmia Hyposmia Parosmia Questionnaire 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are indebted to Elisabeth Pauli, Ph.D., Department of Neurology, University of Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany, for her help with the psychometric testing of the subjects/patients and statistics and Dr. Basile Landis, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University of Dresden Medical School, Dresden, Germany, for critical comments.

References

  1. 1.
    Cain WS, Gent JF, Goodspeed RB, Leonard G (1988) Evaluation of olfactory dysfunction in the Connecticut Chemosensory Clinical Research Center (CCCRC). Laryngoscope 98:83–88Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Deems DA, Doty RL, Settle RG, Moore-Gillon V, Shaman P, Mester AF, Kimmelman CP, Brightman VJ, Snow JB (1991) Smell and taste disorders: a study of 750 patients from the University of Pennsylvania Smell and Taste Center. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 117:519–528Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Doty RL (1986) Gender and endocrine-related influences upon olfactory sensitivity. In: Meiselman H, Rivlin RS (eds) Clinical measurement of taste and smell. MacMillan, New York, pp 377–413Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Doty RL, Genow A, Hummel T (1998) Scratch density differentiates microsmic from normosmic and anosmic subjects on the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test. Percept Mot Skills 86:211–216Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Doty RL, Shaman P, Dann M (1984) Development of the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test: a standardized microencapsulated test of olfactory function (UPSIT). Physiol Behav 32:489–502Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Duncan HJ, Smith DV (1995) Clinical disorders of olfaction. In: Doty RL (ed) Handbook of olfaction and gustation. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 345–365Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eggert D, Ratschinski G (1983) Eysenck-Persönlichkeits-Inventar (EPI). Hogrefe, GöttingenGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Faulcon P, Portier F, Biacabe B, Bonfils P (1999) Anosmie secondaire á une rhinite aiguë: sémiologie et évolution á propos d’une série de 118 patients. Ann Otolaryngol Chir Cervicofac 116:351–357Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Frasnelli JA, Temmel AF, Quint C, Oberbauer R, Hummel T (2002) Olfactory function in chronic renal failure. Am J Rhinol 16:275–279Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goebel G, Hiller W (1994) Tinnitus-Fragebogen (TF). HNO 42:166–172Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hautzinger M, Bailer M, Worall H, Keller F (1995) Beck-Depressions-Inventar (BDI). Hogrefe, GöttingenGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hiller W, Goebel G (1992) A psychometric study of complaints in chronic tinnitus. J Psychosom Res 36:337–348Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hummel T, Heilmann S, Hüttenbrink KB (2002) Lipoic acid in the treatment of smell dysfunction following viral infection of the upper respiratory tract. Laryngoscope 112:2076–2080Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hummel T, Sekinger B, Wolf SR, Pauli E, Kobal G (1997) “Sniffin’ sticks”: olfactory performance assessed by the combined testing of odor identification, odor discrimination and olfactory threshold. Chem Senses 22:39–52Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kobal G, Hummel T (1998) Olfactory and intranasal trigeminal event-related potentials in anosmic patients. Laryngoscope 108:1033–1035Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kobal G, Klimek L, Wolfensberger M, Gudziol H, Temmel A, Owen CM, Seeber H, Pauli E, Hummel T (2000) Multicenter investigation of 1,036 subjects using a standardized method for the assessment of olfactory function combining tests of odor identification, odor discrimination, and olfactory thresholds. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 257:205–211Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Landis BN, Hummel T, Hugentobler M, Giger R, Lacroix JS (2003) Ratings of overall olfactory function. Chem Senses 28:691–694Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Leopold D (2002) Distortion of olfactory perception: diagnosis and treatment. Chem Senses 27:611–615Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Miwa T, Furukawa M, Tsukatani T, Costanzo RM, DiNardo LJ, Reiter ER (2001) Impact of olfactory impairment on quality of life and disability. Arch Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg 127:497–503Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nordin S, Monsch AU, Murphy C (1995) Unawareness of smell loss in normal aging and Alzheimer’s disease: discrepancy between self-reported and diagnosed smell sensitivity. J Gerontol 50:P187–192Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nordin S, Murphy C, Davidson TM, Quinonez C, Jalowayski AA, Ellison DW (1996) Prevalence and assessment of qualitative olfactory dysfunction in different age groups. Laryngoscope 106:739–744Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Quint C, Temmel AF, Schickinger B, Pabinger S, Ramberger P, Hummel T (2001) Patterns of non-conductive olfactory disorders in eastern Austria: a study of 120 patients from the Department of Otorhinolaryngology at the University of Vienna. Wien Klin Wochenschr 113:52–57Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stevens JC, Cain WS (1986) Smelling via the mouth: effect of aging. Percept Psychophys 40:142–146Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Temmel AF, Quint C, Schickinger-Fischer B, Klimek L, Stoller E, Hummel T (2002) Characteristics of olfactory disorders in relation to major causes of olfactory loss. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 128:635–641Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ware JE (1996) The SF-36 Health Survey. In: Spilker B (ed) Quality of life and pharmaeconomics in clinical trials. Lipincott-Raven, Philadelphia:, pp 337–346Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wolfensberger M, Schnieper I, Welge-Lussen A (2000) Sniffin’Sticks: a new olfactory test battery. Acta Otolaryngol 120:303–306Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wysocki CJ, Gilbert AN (1989) National Geographic Smell Survey: effects of age are heterogenous. Ann N Y Acad Sci 561:12–28Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zarinko K (1896) Über Kakosmia subjectiva. In: Festschrift zur Feier des 80-jährigen Stiftungsfestes des ärztlichen Vereins zu Hamburg. Leipzig, pp 339–342Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zerssen D (1975) Die Befindlichkeitsskala. Beltz Test, GöttingenGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zilstorff K (1966) Parosmia. J Laryngol 80:1102–1104Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Smell and Taste ClinicUniversity of Dresden Medical SchoolDresdenGermany

Personalised recommendations