The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Impact of Olfactory Impairment on Quality of Life and Disability
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether olfactory loss affects patients' quality of life or level of disability. DESIGN: Retrospective survey using questionnaire data and clinic database review. SETTING: Two university medical center smell and taste clinics. PATIENTS: A total of 1407 patients were tested for smell and taste disturbances from 1984 through 1998. Surveys were mailed to 1093 patients who had abnormal test scores; 420 (38.4%) returned completed surveys. Patients were grouped by self-rated ability to smell as "impaired" (those reporting persisting deficits) or "improved" (those reporting no smell problem when surveyed). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Response frequencies were compared between the 2 groups for questions regarding ability to perform common activities of daily living and quality-of-life issues. RESULTS: Mean (+/-SD) number of activities of daily living affected by olfactory loss was 4.70 +/- 3.56 for the impaired group and 0.61 +/- 1.58 for the improved group (P < .001). Among specific activities, the most common cited impairments were ability to detect spoiled food (impaired vs improved groups, 75% vs 12%; P < .001), gas leaks (61% vs 8%; P < .001), or smoke (50% vs 1%; P < .001); eating (53% vs 12%; P < .001); and cooking (49% vs 12%; P < .001). Differences in quality-of-life issues were reported primarily in the areas of safety and eating. Overall satisfaction with life was reported by 87% of the improved group but only 50% of the impaired group (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients reporting persistent olfactory impairment after previously documented olfactory loss indicate a higher level of disability and lower quality of life than those with perceived resolution of olfactory compromise.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
An initial evaluation of the functions of human olfaction
Stevenson, R. J. (2010) · Chemical Senses · doi:10.1093/chemse/bjp083 · Cited by 689
The association between smoking and smell and taste impairment in the general population
Vennemann, M. M., Hummel, T., & Berger, K. (2008) · Journal of Neurology · doi:10.1007/s00415-008-0807-9 · Cited by 508
Flavor binding: Its nature and cause
Stevenson, R. J. (2014) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0033473 · Cited by 52
Metadata
- Authors
- Miwa, T., Furukawa, M., Tsukatani, T., Costanzo, R. M., DiNardo, L. J., & Reiter, E. R.
- Venue
- Archives of Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2001-05-01
- Volume
- 127
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 497
- ISSN
- 0886-4470 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2134695358
- Cited by
- 488
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 2.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Impact of Olfactory Impairment on Quality of Life and Disability. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archotol.127.5.497
- The paper
- Miwa, T., Furukawa, M., Tsukatani, T., Costanzo, R. M., DiNardo, L. J., & Reiter, E. R. (2001). Impact of Olfactory Impairment on Quality of Life and Disability. Archives of Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1001/archotol.127.5.497
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.