International clinical assessment of smell: An international, cross-sectional survey of current practice in the assessment of olfaction

Research output: Contribution to journalResearch articleContributedpeer-review

Contributors

  • Katherine L Whitcroft - , Heythrop College, University of London (Author)
  • Isam Alobid - , Hospital Clinic of Barcelona (Author)
  • Aytug Altundag - , Biruni Universitesi (Author)
  • Peter Andrews - , Royal National and ENT Hospital (RNENT) (Author)
  • Sean Carrie - , Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (Author)
  • Miriam Fahmy - , The Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust (Author)
  • Alexander W Fjaeldstad - , University Clinic for Flavour (Author)
  • Simon Gane - , School of Advanced Study (Author)
  • Claire Hopkins - , Iran University of Medical Sciences (Author)
  • Julien Wen Hsieh - , Geneva University Hospitals (Author)
  • Caroline Huart - , Iran University of Medical Sciences (Author)
  • Thomas Hummel - , Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus Dresden (Author)
  • Iordanis Konstantinidis - , Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (Author)
  • Baslie N Landis - , Geneva University Hospitals (Author)
  • Eri Mori - , The Jikei University School of Medicine (Author)
  • Joaquim Mullol - , Instituto de Salud Carlos III (Author)
  • Carl Philpott - , University of East Anglia (Author)
  • Aristotelis Poulios - , The Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust (Author)
  • Jan Vodička - , Pardubice Regional Hospital (Author)
  • Victoria M Ward - , The Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust (Author)

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Olfactory dysfunction (OD) is common and carries significant personal and societal burden. Accurate assessment is necessary for good clinical and research practice but is highly dependent on the assessment technique used. Current practice with regards to UK/international clinical assessment is unknown. We aimed to capture current clinical practice, with reference to contemporaneously available guidelines. We further aimed to compare UK to international practice.

DESIGN: Anonymous online questionnaire with cross-sectional non-probability sampling. Subgroup analysis according to subspeciality training in rhinology ('rhinologists' and 'non-rhinologists') was performed, with geographical comparisons only made according to subgroup.

PARTICIPANTS: ENT surgeons who assess olfaction.

RESULTS: Responses were received from 465 clinicians (217 from UK and 17 countries total). Country-specific response rate varied, with the lowest rate being obtained from Japan (1.4%) and highest from Greece (72.5%). Most UK clinicians do not perform psychophysical smell testing during any of the presented clinical scenarios-though rhinologists did so more often than non-rhinologists. The most frequent barriers to testing related to service provision (e.g., time/funding limitations). Whilst there was variability in practice, in general, international respondents performed psychophysical testing more frequently than those from the UK. Approximately 3/4 of all respondents said they would like to receive training in psychophysical smell testing. Patient reported outcome measures were infrequently used in the UK/internationally. More UK respondents performed diagnostic MRI scanning than international respondents.

CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the most comprehensive UK-based, and only international survey of clinical practice in the assessment of OD. We present recommendations to improve practice, including increased education and funding for psychophysical smell testing. We hope this will promote accurate and reliable olfactory assessment, as is the accepted standard in other sensory systems.

Details

Original languageEnglish
JournalClinical Otolaryngology
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 28 Dec 2023
Peer-reviewedYes

External IDs

Scopus 85180885106
ORCID /0000-0001-9713-0183/work/150330705

Keywords