Cited by 953

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Prevalence of olfactory impairment in older adults.

Murphy, Claire·2002·JAMA

Abstract

Context Older adults represent the fastest-growing segment of the US population, and prevalences of vision and hearing impairment have been extensively evaluated. However, despite the importance of sense of smell for nutrition and safety, the prevalence of olfactory impairment in older US adults has not been studied. Objective To determine the prevalence of olfactory impairment in older adults. Design, setting, and participants A total of 2491 Beaver Dam, Wis, residents aged 53 to 97 years participating in the 5-year follow-up examination (1998-2000) for the Epidemiology of Hearing Loss Study, a population-based, cross-sectional study. Main outcome measures Olfactory impairment, assessed by the San Diego Odor Identification Test and self-report. Results The mean (SD) prevalence of impaired olfaction was 24.5% (1.7%). The prevalence increased with age; 62.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 57.4%-67.7%) of 80- to 97-year-olds had olfactory impairment. Olfactory impairment was more prevalent among men (adjusted prevalence ratio, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.65-2.19). Current smoking, stroke, epilepsy, and nasal congestion or upper respiratory tract infection were also associated with increased prevalence of olfactory impairment. Self-reported olfactory impairment was low (9.5%) and this measure became less accurate with age. In the oldest group, aged 80 to 97 years, sensitivity of self-report was 12% for women and 18% for men. Conclusions This study demonstrates that prevalence of olfactory i…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.288.18.2307

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 953

Metadata

Authors
Murphy, C.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2002-11-13
Volume
288
Issue
18
Pages
2307
ISSN
0098-7484
Cited by
953
References
2
Language
en

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