Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add filters

Database
Language
Document Type
Year range
1.
Richard C. Gerkin; Kathrin Ohla; Maria Geraldine Veldhuizen; Paule V. Joseph; Christine E. Kelly; Alyssa J. Bakke; Kimberley E. Steele; Michael C. Farruggia; Robert Pellegrino; Marta Y. Pepino; Cédric Bouysset; Graciela M. Soler; Veronica Pereda-Loth; Michele Dibattista; Keiland W. Cooper; Ilja Croijmans; Antonella Di Pizio; M. Hakan Ozdener; Alexander W. Fjaeldstad; Cailu Lin; Mari A. Sandell; Preet B. Singh; V. Evelyn Brindha; Shannon B. Olsson; Luis R. Saraiva; Gaurav Ahuja; Mohammed K. Alwashahi; Surabhi Bhutani; Anna D'Errico; Marco A. Fornazieri; Jérôme Golebiowski; Liang-Dar Hwang; Lina Öztürk; Eugeni Roura; Sara Spinelli; Katherine L. Whitcroft; Farhoud Faraji; Florian Ph.S Fischmeister; Thomas Heinbockel; Julien W. Hsieh; Caroline Huart; Iordanis Konstantinidis; Anna Menini; Gabriella Morini; Jonas K. Olofsson; Carl M. Philpott; Denis Pierron; Vonnie D. C. Shields; Vera V. Voznessenskaya; Javier Albayay; Aytug Altundag; Moustafa Bensafi; María Adelaida Bock; Orietta Calcinoni; William Fredborg; Christophe Laudamiel; Juyun Lim; Johan N. Lundström; Alberto Macchi; Pablo Meyer; Shima T. Moein; Enrique Santamaría; Debarka Sengupta; Paloma Paloma Domínguez; Hüseyin Yanık; Sanne Boesveldt; Jasper H. B. de Groot; Caterina Dinnella; Jessica Freiherr; Tatiana Laktionova; Sajidxa Mariño; Erminio Monteleone; Alexia Nunez-Parra; Olagunju Abdulrahman; Marina Ritchie; Thierry Thomas-Danguin; Julie Walsh-Messinger; Rashid Al Abri; Rafieh Alizadeh; Emmanuelle Bignon; Elena Cantone; Maria Paola Cecchini; Jingguo Chen; Maria Dolors Guàrdia; Kara C. Hoover; Noam Karni; Marta Navarro; Alissa A. Nolden; Patricia Portillo Mazal; Nicholas R. Rowan; Atiye Sarabi-Jamab; Nicholas S. Archer; Ben Chen; Elizabeth A. Di Valerio; Emma L. Feeney; Johannes Frasnelli; Mackenzie Hannum; Claire Hopkins; Hadar Klein; Coralie Mignot; Carla Mucignat; Yuping Ning; Elif E. Ozturk; Mei Peng; Ozlem Saatci; Elizabeth A. Sell; Carol H. Yan; Raul Alfaro; Cinzia Cecchetto; Gérard Coureaud; Riley D. Herriman; Jeb M. Justice; Pavan Kumar Kaushik; Sachiko Koyama; Jonathan B. Overdevest; Nicola Pirastu; Vicente A. Ramirez; S. Craig Roberts; Barry C. Smith; Hongyuan Cao; Hong Wang; Patrick Balungwe; Marius Baguma; Thomas Hummel; John E. Hayes; Danielle R. Reed; Masha Y. Niv; Steven D. Munger; Valentina Parma.
medrxiv; 2020.
Preprint in English | medRxiv | ID: ppzbmed-10.1101.2020.07.22.20157263

ABSTRACT

Background: COVID-19 has heterogeneous manifestations, though one of the most common symptoms is a sudden loss of smell (anosmia or hyposmia). We investigated whether olfactory loss is a reliable predictor of COVID-19. Methods: This preregistered, cross-sectional study used a crowdsourced questionnaire in 23 languages to assess symptoms in individuals self-reporting recent respiratory illness. We quantified changes in chemosensory abilities during the course of the respiratory illness using 0-100 visual analog scales (VAS) for participants reporting a positive (C19+; n=4148) or negative (C19-; n=546) COVID-19 laboratory test outcome. Logistic regression models identified singular and cumulative predictors of COVID-19 status and post-COVID-19 olfactory recovery. Results: Both C19+ and C19- groups exhibited smell loss, but it was significantly larger in C19+ participants (mean{+/-}SD, C19+: -82.5{+/-}27.2 points; C19-: -59.8{+/-}37.7). Smell loss during illness was the best predictor of COVID-19 in both single and cumulative feature models (ROC AUC=0.72), with additional features providing no significant model improvement. VAS ratings of smell loss were more predictive than binary chemosensory yes/no-questions or other cardinal symptoms, such as fever or cough. Olfactory recovery within 40 days was reported for ~50% of participants and was best predicted by time since illness onset. Conclusions: As smell loss is the best predictor of COVID-19, we developed the ODoR-19 tool, a 0-10 scale to screen for recent olfactory loss. Numeric ratings [≤]2 indicate high odds of symptomatic COVID-19 (10


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Fever , Olfaction Disorders , Cough
2.
medrxiv; 2020.
Preprint in English | medRxiv | ID: ppzbmed-10.1101.2020.07.04.20145870

ABSTRACT

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has currently infected over 6.5 million people worldwide. In response to the pandemic, numerous studies have tried to identify causes and symptoms of the disease. Emerging evidence supports recently acquired anosmia (complete loss of smell) and hyposmia (partial loss of smell) as symptoms of COVID-19, but studies of olfactory dysfunction show a wide range of prevalence, from 5% to 98%. We undertook a search of Pubmed/Medline and Google Scholar with the keywords "COVID-19," "smell," and/or "olfaction." We included any study that quantified olfactory loss as a symptom of COVID-19. Studies were grouped and compared based on the type of method used to measure smell loss--subjective measures such as self-reported smell loss versus objective measures using rated stimuli--to determine if prevalence rate differed by method type. For each study, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated from point estimates of olfactory disturbance rates. We identified 34 articles quantifying anosmia as a symptom of COVID-19, collected from cases identified from January 16 to April 30, 2020. The pooled prevalence estimate of smell loss was 77% when assessed through objective measurements (95% CI of 61.4-89.2%) and 45% with subjective measurements (95% CI of 31.1-58.5%). Objective measures are a more sensitive method to identify smell loss as a result of infection with SARS-CoV-2; the use of subjective measures, while expedient during the early stages of the pandemic, underestimates the true prevalence of smell loss.


Subject(s)
COVID-19
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL