Olfactory cleft evaluation: a predictor for olfactory function in smell-impaired patients?
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, ISSN: 1434-4726, Vol: 275, Issue: 5, Page: 1129-1137
2018
- 17Citations
- 27Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations17
- Citation Indexes17
- 17
- Captures27
- Readers27
- 27
Article Description
Objective: In this study, we introduce an extension of previous work by Soler et al. (Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 6(3):293–298, 2016) on a modified endoscopic scoring system of the Lund–Kennedy Score (focusing on the olfactory cleft) to evaluate its correlation with the olfactory function in patients with various smell disorders. Study design: A prospective cohort study. Methods: Two-hundred and eighty-eight participants were included and categorized in five groups according to the cause of their olfactory disorder: (0) control, (1) idiopathic, (2) sino-nasal, (3) postinfectious and (4) post traumatic olfactory loss. Olfaction was evaluated using the “Sniffin’ Sticks” test. The classical Lund–Kennedy scoring and a new olfactory cleft specific Lund–Kennedy scoring (OC–LK) were performed to evaluate mucosal changes. Results: Significantly higher OC–LK scores on both sides were found in smell-impaired patients as compared to normosmic controls. When comparing the 4 groups, a significant difference of the OC–LK score were present between the sino-nasal and all other groups. Most importantly, significant negative correlations with strong effects were shown in the sino-nasal group between the OC–LK score and odor discrimination and odor identification. However, no such correlation emerged between the classical LK score and smell function. Conclusion: Olfactory cleft evaluation using the OC–LK score correlates with the olfactory function in patients with sino-nasal smell disorder. This diagnostic tool may reflect the underlying pathophysiological mechanism of sino-nasal smell loss, and therefore, should complement olfactory diagnostics in patients with sino-nasal smell disorder.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85042608910&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00405-018-4913-8; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29488006; http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00405-018-4913-8; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00405-018-4913-8; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00405-018-4913-8
Springer Nature
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know