Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 363

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Olfactory training is helpful in postinfectious olfactory loss: A randomized, controlled, multicenter study

Damm, Michael, Pikart, Louisa K., Reimann, Heike, Burkert, Silke, Göktas, Önder, Haxel, Boris, Frey, Sabine, Charalampakis, Ioannis, Beule, Achim, Renner, Berthold, Hummel, Thomas, Hüttenbrink, Karl‐Bernd·2014·The Laryngoscope

Abstract

Objectives/Hypothesis: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of olfactory training (OT) on olfactory function in patients with persistent postinfectious olfactory dysfunction (PIOD). Study Design: Randomized, single‐blind, controlled, multicenter crossover study. Methods: Twelve tertiary university medical centers participated. Investigations were performed at three visits (baseline, after 18 weeks, and after 36 weeks), including only subjects with PIOD of <24‐months duration. At each visit, participants received detailed assessment of olfactory function. Seventy subjects trained with high concentrations of four odors for 18 weeks; the other half (n = 74) trained with low concentrations of odors. For the following 18 weeks this regimen was switched. Results: After 18 weeks, olfactory function improved in the high‐training group in 18 of 70 participants (26%), whereas only 11/74 improved in the low‐training group (15%). In subjects with a duration of olfactory dysfunction of <12 months, olfactory function improved in 15/24 participants (63%) of the high‐training group and in 6/31 participants (19%) of the low‐training group (P = .03). Conclusions: OT improves PIOD, and the use of odors at higher concentrations is beneficial to improvement. OT is a safe procedure and appears to be particularly useful in patients who start OT within 12 months after the onset of the disorder. OT is the first successful therapy regime in patients with PIOD. Level of Evidence: 1b. Laryngoscope, 124:826–831, 2014

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/lary.24340

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cites

Show all 19 references

Cited by

See all 363

Metadata

Authors
Damm, M., Pikart, L. K., Reimann, H., Burkert, S., Göktas, Ö., Haxel, B., Frey, S., Charalampakis, I., Beule, A., Renner, B., Hummel, T., & Hüttenbrink, K.
Venue
The Laryngoscope
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-09-19
Volume
124
Issue
4
Pages
826-831
ISSN
  • 0023-852X (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-4995
OpenAlex
W2169282365
Cited by
363
References
19
FWCI
6.99
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: Olfactory training is helpful in postinfectious olfactory loss: A randomized, controlled, multicenter study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/lary.24340
The paper
Damm, M., Pikart, L. K., Reimann, H., Burkert, S., Göktas, Ö., Haxel, B., Frey, S., Charalampakis, I., Beule, A., Renner, B., Hummel, T., & Hüttenbrink, K. (2014). Olfactory training is helpful in postinfectious olfactory loss: A randomized, controlled, multicenter study. The Laryngoscope. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.24340

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.