International clinical assessment of smell: An international, cross‐sectional survey of current practice in the assessment of olfaction

Objectives Olfactory dysfunction (OD) is common and carries significant personal and societal burden. Accurate assessment is necessary for good clinical and research practice but is highly dependent on the assessment technique used. Current practice with regards to UK/international clinical assessme...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Clinical otolaryngology 2024-03, Vol.49 (2), p.220-234
Hauptverfasser: Whitcroft, Katherine L., Alobid, Isam, Altundag, Aytug, Andrews, Peter, Carrie, Sean, Fahmy, Miriam, Fjældstad, Alexander W., Gane, Simon, Hopkins, Claire, Hsieh, Julien Wen, Huart, Caroline, Hummel, Thomas, Konstantinidis, Iordanis, Landis, Baslie N., Mori, Eri, Mullol, Joaquim, Philpott, Carl, Poulios, Aristotelis, Vodička, Jan, Ward, Victoria M.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 234
container_issue 2
container_start_page 220
container_title Clinical otolaryngology
container_volume 49
creator Whitcroft, Katherine L.
Alobid, Isam
Altundag, Aytug
Andrews, Peter
Carrie, Sean
Fahmy, Miriam
Fjældstad, Alexander W.
Gane, Simon
Hopkins, Claire
Hsieh, Julien Wen
Huart, Caroline
Hummel, Thomas
Konstantinidis, Iordanis
Landis, Baslie N.
Mori, Eri
Mullol, Joaquim
Philpott, Carl
Poulios, Aristotelis
Vodička, Jan
Ward, Victoria M.
description Objectives Olfactory dysfunction (OD) is common and carries significant personal and societal burden. Accurate assessment is necessary for good clinical and research practice but is highly dependent on the assessment technique used. Current practice with regards to UK/international clinical assessment is unknown. We aimed to capture current clinical practice, with reference to contemporaneously available guidelines. We further aimed to compare UK to international practice. Design Anonymous online questionnaire with cross‐sectional non‐probability sampling. Subgroup analysis according to subspeciality training in rhinology (‘rhinologists’ and ‘non‐rhinologists’) was performed, with geographical comparisons only made according to subgroup. Participants ENT surgeons who assess olfaction. Results Responses were received from 465 clinicians (217 from UK and 17 countries total). Country‐specific response rate varied, with the lowest rate being obtained from Japan (1.4%) and highest from Greece (72.5%). Most UK clinicians do not perform psychophysical smell testing during any of the presented clinical scenarios—though rhinologists did so more often than non‐rhinologists. The most frequent barriers to testing related to service provision (e.g., time/funding limitations). Whilst there was variability in practice, in general, international respondents performed psychophysical testing more frequently than those from the UK. Approximately 3/4 of all respondents said they would like to receive training in psychophysical smell testing. Patient reported outcome measures were infrequently used in the UK/internationally. More UK respondents performed diagnostic MRI scanning than international respondents. Conclusions To our knowledge, this is the most comprehensive UK‐based, and only international survey of clinical practice in the assessment of OD. We present recommendations to improve practice, including increased education and funding for psychophysical smell testing. We hope this will promote accurate and reliable olfactory assessment, as is the accepted standard in other sensory systems.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/coa.14123
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2907194563</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2926343230</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3483-746ec1cec348db54088bd49be04a1d81a14b5e5e7fb68673be7cdc32396bbb0e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kU9LwzAYxoMobk4PfgEpeFFwW9KkbeptDP8MBrvoOSTpW-zon5m0ym5evfkZ_SSm6xwyMJc8Ib_ngfd9EDoneETcGetKjggjPj1AfRKxeMgYDw93OuI9dGLtEmNGcUSOUY9yEtAoxH30OStrMKWss6qUuafzrMy0E9JasLaAsvaq1HMiz2-9Sellf_EbT5vK2u-PLwt6m2Ab8wbr1qQbY1r_ykj3qcF5vfoF9qKrPJUb7yk6SmVu4Wx7D9Dz_d3T9HE4XzzMppP5UFPG6TBiIWiioX0lKmCYc5WwWAFmkiScSMJUAAFEqQp5GFEFkU409WkcKqUw0AG66nJXpnptwNaiyKx288kSqsYKP3Y7ilkQUode7qHLqnHT5y3lh5S5WOyo647aLMNAKlYmK6RZC4JF249w_YhNP4692CY2qoBkR_4W4oBxB7xnOaz_TxLTxaSL_AHrNp1J</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2926343230</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>International clinical assessment of smell: An international, cross‐sectional survey of current practice in the assessment of olfaction</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><creator>Whitcroft, Katherine L. ; Alobid, Isam ; Altundag, Aytug ; Andrews, Peter ; Carrie, Sean ; Fahmy, Miriam ; Fjældstad, Alexander W. ; Gane, Simon ; Hopkins, Claire ; Hsieh, Julien Wen ; Huart, Caroline ; Hummel, Thomas ; Konstantinidis, Iordanis ; Landis, Baslie N. ; Mori, Eri ; Mullol, Joaquim ; Philpott, Carl ; Poulios, Aristotelis ; Vodička, Jan ; Ward, Victoria M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Whitcroft, Katherine L. ; Alobid, Isam ; Altundag, Aytug ; Andrews, Peter ; Carrie, Sean ; Fahmy, Miriam ; Fjældstad, Alexander W. ; Gane, Simon ; Hopkins, Claire ; Hsieh, Julien Wen ; Huart, Caroline ; Hummel, Thomas ; Konstantinidis, Iordanis ; Landis, Baslie N. ; Mori, Eri ; Mullol, Joaquim ; Philpott, Carl ; Poulios, Aristotelis ; Vodička, Jan ; Ward, Victoria M.</creatorcontrib><description>Objectives Olfactory dysfunction (OD) is common and carries significant personal and societal burden. Accurate assessment is necessary for good clinical and research practice but is highly dependent on the assessment technique used. Current practice with regards to UK/international clinical assessment is unknown. We aimed to capture current clinical practice, with reference to contemporaneously available guidelines. We further aimed to compare UK to international practice. Design Anonymous online questionnaire with cross‐sectional non‐probability sampling. Subgroup analysis according to subspeciality training in rhinology (‘rhinologists’ and ‘non‐rhinologists’) was performed, with geographical comparisons only made according to subgroup. Participants ENT surgeons who assess olfaction. Results Responses were received from 465 clinicians (217 from UK and 17 countries total). Country‐specific response rate varied, with the lowest rate being obtained from Japan (1.4%) and highest from Greece (72.5%). Most UK clinicians do not perform psychophysical smell testing during any of the presented clinical scenarios—though rhinologists did so more often than non‐rhinologists. The most frequent barriers to testing related to service provision (e.g., time/funding limitations). Whilst there was variability in practice, in general, international respondents performed psychophysical testing more frequently than those from the UK. Approximately 3/4 of all respondents said they would like to receive training in psychophysical smell testing. Patient reported outcome measures were infrequently used in the UK/internationally. More UK respondents performed diagnostic MRI scanning than international respondents. Conclusions To our knowledge, this is the most comprehensive UK‐based, and only international survey of clinical practice in the assessment of OD. We present recommendations to improve practice, including increased education and funding for psychophysical smell testing. We hope this will promote accurate and reliable olfactory assessment, as is the accepted standard in other sensory systems.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1749-4478</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1749-4486</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/coa.14123</identifier><identifier>PMID: 38153760</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>assessment ; Clinical medicine ; clinical practice ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; Educational Status ; Funding ; Humans ; international ; Olfaction ; Olfaction disorders ; Olfaction Disorders - diagnosis ; olfactory dysfunction ; Patient Reported Outcome Measures ; Privacy ; Psychophysics ; Sensory systems ; Smell ; Smell - physiology ; Subgroups ; Surveys ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Training</subject><ispartof>Clinical otolaryngology, 2024-03, Vol.49 (2), p.220-234</ispartof><rights>2023 The Authors. published by John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>2023 The Authors. Clinical Otolaryngology published by John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>2023. This article is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3483-746ec1cec348db54088bd49be04a1d81a14b5e5e7fb68673be7cdc32396bbb0e3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-9763-1981 ; 0000-0002-3208-753X ; 0000-0003-0794-5050 ; 0000-0003-1722-1814 ; 0000-0003-3273-3789 ; 0000-0002-0273-3422 ; 0000-0002-0356-8190 ; 0000-0002-9244-464X ; 0000-0002-1125-3236 ; 0000-0001-7675-1239 ; 0000-0001-9713-0183 ; 0000-0003-3463-5007 ; 0000-0002-1417-0049 ; 0000-0001-6034-3724 ; 0000-0002-9135-6920 ; 0000-0003-3993-1569 ; 0000-0003-1882-6380 ; 0000-0002-2541-6286</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fcoa.14123$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fcoa.14123$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38153760$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Whitcroft, Katherine L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alobid, Isam</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Altundag, Aytug</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Andrews, Peter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carrie, Sean</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fahmy, Miriam</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fjældstad, Alexander W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gane, Simon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hopkins, Claire</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hsieh, Julien Wen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Huart, Caroline</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hummel, Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Konstantinidis, Iordanis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Landis, Baslie N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mori, Eri</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mullol, Joaquim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Philpott, Carl</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Poulios, Aristotelis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vodička, Jan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ward, Victoria M.</creatorcontrib><title>International clinical assessment of smell: An international, cross‐sectional survey of current practice in the assessment of olfaction</title><title>Clinical otolaryngology</title><addtitle>Clin Otolaryngol</addtitle><description>Objectives Olfactory dysfunction (OD) is common and carries significant personal and societal burden. Accurate assessment is necessary for good clinical and research practice but is highly dependent on the assessment technique used. Current practice with regards to UK/international clinical assessment is unknown. We aimed to capture current clinical practice, with reference to contemporaneously available guidelines. We further aimed to compare UK to international practice. Design Anonymous online questionnaire with cross‐sectional non‐probability sampling. Subgroup analysis according to subspeciality training in rhinology (‘rhinologists’ and ‘non‐rhinologists’) was performed, with geographical comparisons only made according to subgroup. Participants ENT surgeons who assess olfaction. Results Responses were received from 465 clinicians (217 from UK and 17 countries total). Country‐specific response rate varied, with the lowest rate being obtained from Japan (1.4%) and highest from Greece (72.5%). Most UK clinicians do not perform psychophysical smell testing during any of the presented clinical scenarios—though rhinologists did so more often than non‐rhinologists. The most frequent barriers to testing related to service provision (e.g., time/funding limitations). Whilst there was variability in practice, in general, international respondents performed psychophysical testing more frequently than those from the UK. Approximately 3/4 of all respondents said they would like to receive training in psychophysical smell testing. Patient reported outcome measures were infrequently used in the UK/internationally. More UK respondents performed diagnostic MRI scanning than international respondents. Conclusions To our knowledge, this is the most comprehensive UK‐based, and only international survey of clinical practice in the assessment of OD. We present recommendations to improve practice, including increased education and funding for psychophysical smell testing. We hope this will promote accurate and reliable olfactory assessment, as is the accepted standard in other sensory systems.</description><subject>assessment</subject><subject>Clinical medicine</subject><subject>clinical practice</subject><subject>Cross-Sectional Studies</subject><subject>Educational Status</subject><subject>Funding</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>international</subject><subject>Olfaction</subject><subject>Olfaction disorders</subject><subject>Olfaction Disorders - diagnosis</subject><subject>olfactory dysfunction</subject><subject>Patient Reported Outcome Measures</subject><subject>Privacy</subject><subject>Psychophysics</subject><subject>Sensory systems</subject><subject>Smell</subject><subject>Smell - physiology</subject><subject>Subgroups</subject><subject>Surveys</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><subject>Training</subject><issn>1749-4478</issn><issn>1749-4486</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>WIN</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kU9LwzAYxoMobk4PfgEpeFFwW9KkbeptDP8MBrvoOSTpW-zon5m0ym5evfkZ_SSm6xwyMJc8Ib_ngfd9EDoneETcGetKjggjPj1AfRKxeMgYDw93OuI9dGLtEmNGcUSOUY9yEtAoxH30OStrMKWss6qUuafzrMy0E9JasLaAsvaq1HMiz2-9Sellf_EbT5vK2u-PLwt6m2Ab8wbr1qQbY1r_ykj3qcF5vfoF9qKrPJUb7yk6SmVu4Wx7D9Dz_d3T9HE4XzzMppP5UFPG6TBiIWiioX0lKmCYc5WwWAFmkiScSMJUAAFEqQp5GFEFkU409WkcKqUw0AG66nJXpnptwNaiyKx288kSqsYKP3Y7ilkQUode7qHLqnHT5y3lh5S5WOyo647aLMNAKlYmK6RZC4JF249w_YhNP4692CY2qoBkR_4W4oBxB7xnOaz_TxLTxaSL_AHrNp1J</recordid><startdate>202403</startdate><enddate>202403</enddate><creator>Whitcroft, Katherine L.</creator><creator>Alobid, Isam</creator><creator>Altundag, Aytug</creator><creator>Andrews, Peter</creator><creator>Carrie, Sean</creator><creator>Fahmy, Miriam</creator><creator>Fjældstad, Alexander W.</creator><creator>Gane, Simon</creator><creator>Hopkins, Claire</creator><creator>Hsieh, Julien Wen</creator><creator>Huart, Caroline</creator><creator>Hummel, Thomas</creator><creator>Konstantinidis, Iordanis</creator><creator>Landis, Baslie N.</creator><creator>Mori, Eri</creator><creator>Mullol, Joaquim</creator><creator>Philpott, Carl</creator><creator>Poulios, Aristotelis</creator><creator>Vodička, Jan</creator><creator>Ward, Victoria M.</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M7Z</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9763-1981</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3208-753X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0794-5050</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1722-1814</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3273-3789</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0273-3422</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0356-8190</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9244-464X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1125-3236</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7675-1239</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9713-0183</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3463-5007</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1417-0049</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6034-3724</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9135-6920</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3993-1569</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1882-6380</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2541-6286</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202403</creationdate><title>International clinical assessment of smell: An international, cross‐sectional survey of current practice in the assessment of olfaction</title><author>Whitcroft, Katherine L. ; Alobid, Isam ; Altundag, Aytug ; Andrews, Peter ; Carrie, Sean ; Fahmy, Miriam ; Fjældstad, Alexander W. ; Gane, Simon ; Hopkins, Claire ; Hsieh, Julien Wen ; Huart, Caroline ; Hummel, Thomas ; Konstantinidis, Iordanis ; Landis, Baslie N. ; Mori, Eri ; Mullol, Joaquim ; Philpott, Carl ; Poulios, Aristotelis ; Vodička, Jan ; Ward, Victoria M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3483-746ec1cec348db54088bd49be04a1d81a14b5e5e7fb68673be7cdc32396bbb0e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>assessment</topic><topic>Clinical medicine</topic><topic>clinical practice</topic><topic>Cross-Sectional Studies</topic><topic>Educational Status</topic><topic>Funding</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>international</topic><topic>Olfaction</topic><topic>Olfaction disorders</topic><topic>Olfaction Disorders - diagnosis</topic><topic>olfactory dysfunction</topic><topic>Patient Reported Outcome Measures</topic><topic>Privacy</topic><topic>Psychophysics</topic><topic>Sensory systems</topic><topic>Smell</topic><topic>Smell - physiology</topic><topic>Subgroups</topic><topic>Surveys</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><topic>Training</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Whitcroft, Katherine L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alobid, Isam</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Altundag, Aytug</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Andrews, Peter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carrie, Sean</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fahmy, Miriam</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fjældstad, Alexander W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gane, Simon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hopkins, Claire</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hsieh, Julien Wen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Huart, Caroline</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hummel, Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Konstantinidis, Iordanis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Landis, Baslie N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mori, Eri</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mullol, Joaquim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Philpott, Carl</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Poulios, Aristotelis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vodička, Jan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ward, Victoria M.</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)</collection><collection>Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Biochemistry Abstracts 1</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Clinical otolaryngology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Whitcroft, Katherine L.</au><au>Alobid, Isam</au><au>Altundag, Aytug</au><au>Andrews, Peter</au><au>Carrie, Sean</au><au>Fahmy, Miriam</au><au>Fjældstad, Alexander W.</au><au>Gane, Simon</au><au>Hopkins, Claire</au><au>Hsieh, Julien Wen</au><au>Huart, Caroline</au><au>Hummel, Thomas</au><au>Konstantinidis, Iordanis</au><au>Landis, Baslie N.</au><au>Mori, Eri</au><au>Mullol, Joaquim</au><au>Philpott, Carl</au><au>Poulios, Aristotelis</au><au>Vodička, Jan</au><au>Ward, Victoria M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>International clinical assessment of smell: An international, cross‐sectional survey of current practice in the assessment of olfaction</atitle><jtitle>Clinical otolaryngology</jtitle><addtitle>Clin Otolaryngol</addtitle><date>2024-03</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>49</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>220</spage><epage>234</epage><pages>220-234</pages><issn>1749-4478</issn><eissn>1749-4486</eissn><abstract>Objectives Olfactory dysfunction (OD) is common and carries significant personal and societal burden. Accurate assessment is necessary for good clinical and research practice but is highly dependent on the assessment technique used. Current practice with regards to UK/international clinical assessment is unknown. We aimed to capture current clinical practice, with reference to contemporaneously available guidelines. We further aimed to compare UK to international practice. Design Anonymous online questionnaire with cross‐sectional non‐probability sampling. Subgroup analysis according to subspeciality training in rhinology (‘rhinologists’ and ‘non‐rhinologists’) was performed, with geographical comparisons only made according to subgroup. Participants ENT surgeons who assess olfaction. Results Responses were received from 465 clinicians (217 from UK and 17 countries total). Country‐specific response rate varied, with the lowest rate being obtained from Japan (1.4%) and highest from Greece (72.5%). Most UK clinicians do not perform psychophysical smell testing during any of the presented clinical scenarios—though rhinologists did so more often than non‐rhinologists. The most frequent barriers to testing related to service provision (e.g., time/funding limitations). Whilst there was variability in practice, in general, international respondents performed psychophysical testing more frequently than those from the UK. Approximately 3/4 of all respondents said they would like to receive training in psychophysical smell testing. Patient reported outcome measures were infrequently used in the UK/internationally. More UK respondents performed diagnostic MRI scanning than international respondents. Conclusions To our knowledge, this is the most comprehensive UK‐based, and only international survey of clinical practice in the assessment of OD. We present recommendations to improve practice, including increased education and funding for psychophysical smell testing. We hope this will promote accurate and reliable olfactory assessment, as is the accepted standard in other sensory systems.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><pmid>38153760</pmid><doi>10.1111/coa.14123</doi><tpages>15</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9763-1981</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3208-753X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0794-5050</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1722-1814</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3273-3789</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0273-3422</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0356-8190</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9244-464X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1125-3236</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7675-1239</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9713-0183</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3463-5007</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1417-0049</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6034-3724</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9135-6920</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3993-1569</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1882-6380</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2541-6286</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1749-4478
ispartof Clinical otolaryngology, 2024-03, Vol.49 (2), p.220-234
issn 1749-4478
1749-4486
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2907194563
source MEDLINE; Access via Wiley Online Library
subjects assessment
Clinical medicine
clinical practice
Cross-Sectional Studies
Educational Status
Funding
Humans
international
Olfaction
Olfaction disorders
Olfaction Disorders - diagnosis
olfactory dysfunction
Patient Reported Outcome Measures
Privacy
Psychophysics
Sensory systems
Smell
Smell - physiology
Subgroups
Surveys
Surveys and Questionnaires
Training
title International clinical assessment of smell: An international, cross‐sectional survey of current practice in the assessment of olfaction
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-27T14%3A09%3A50IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=International%20clinical%20assessment%20of%20smell:%20An%20international,%20cross%E2%80%90sectional%20survey%20of%20current%20practice%20in%20the%20assessment%20of%20olfaction&rft.jtitle=Clinical%20otolaryngology&rft.au=Whitcroft,%20Katherine%20L.&rft.date=2024-03&rft.volume=49&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=220&rft.epage=234&rft.pages=220-234&rft.issn=1749-4478&rft.eissn=1749-4486&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/coa.14123&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2926343230%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2926343230&rft_id=info:pmid/38153760&rfr_iscdi=true