Cited by 161Olfactory and Sensory Function StudiesHead and Neck Surgical OncologySinusitis and nasal conditions

Long-term Follow-up of Olfactory Loss Secondary to Head Trauma and Upper Respiratory Tract Infection

Duncan, H. J., Seiden, A. M.·1995·Archives of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the extent to which olfactory function can improve after loss induced by head trauma or a previous upper respiratory tract infection (URI) and the time for this improvement for more effective patient counseling. DESIGN: Patients initially evaluated at the University of Cincinnati (Ohio) Taste and Smell Center were reevaluated for olfactory loss with the University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) Smell Identification Test 1 to 5 years after initial testing. Changes in score on this test were used to indicate improvement in sensory function. Subjective information on olfactory ability and olfactory symptoms was also collected. SETTING: University-based tertiary care center. PATIENTS AND OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Forty-one patients with olfactory loss induced by head trauma (20) or previous URI (21). RESULTS: Seven (35%) of 20 patients with head trauma improved on the smell test by 4 points or more. Fourteen of 21 (67%) patients with a previous URI had improved scores of this magnitude or more. A statistically significant correlation was noted between the amounts of improvement and length of follow-up for URI patients. Thirteen of these patients also reported improved olfactory function. CONCLUSION: These findings for patients with head trauma are consistent with other reports of recovery of (or improvement in) olfactory function after trauma-induced loss. For patients with previous URI, these data indicate that improvement in olfactory function occurs, but the improvement may take several years.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archotol.1995.01890100087015

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Duncan, H. J., & Seiden, A. M.
Affiliations
University of Cincinnati Medical Center (US)
Venue
Archives of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery
Published
1995-10-01
Volume
121
Issue
10
Pages
1183-1187
ISSN
0886-4470 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2027744934
Cited by
161
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 4
FWCI
1.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Archives of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Sensory Systems › Olfactory and Sensory Function Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Head and Neck Surgical Oncology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Otorhinolaryngology › Sinusitis and nasal conditions
Keywords
olfactory loss, anosmia, head trauma, upper respiratory tract infection, olfactory function recovery, smell identification test, long-term follow-up, patient counseling
MeSH terms
Adult, Olfaction Disorders, Counseling, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Craniocerebral Trauma, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Middle Aged, Odorants, Remission, Spontaneous, Respiratory Tract Infections, Smell, Reproducibility of Results

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