Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2022; 26(04): e615-e623
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1740597
Original Research

Danish Validation of a Retronasal Olfactory Powder Test and Development of a Novel Quick Retronasal Olfactory Test

Andreas Steenholt Niklassen 
1   University Clinic for Flavour, Balance and Sleep, Ear, Nose and Throat Department, Regional Hospital Gødstrup, Herning, Denmark
2   Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
,
Sukanya Sakthivel
2   Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
,
Alexander Wieck Fjaeldstad 
1   University Clinic for Flavour, Balance and Sleep, Ear, Nose and Throat Department, Regional Hospital Gødstrup, Herning, Denmark
2   Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
,
Therese Ovesen 
1   University Clinic for Flavour, Balance and Sleep, Ear, Nose and Throat Department, Regional Hospital Gødstrup, Herning, Denmark
2   Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Introduction Quality of life is closely linked to retronasal olfactory function. Familiarity with odors vary, so tests need validation. Testing can be time-consuming, so a quick test and a thorough test are needed for clinical and research settings.

Objectives The objectives of this study were to validate the original retronasal powder olfactory test in a Danish population and to develop a novel quick retronasal test for easy application.

Methods Ninety-seven participants were included in the study, 59 healthy controls and 38 patients with olfactory impairment. The retronasal test was modified by substituting unfamiliar odors and descriptors and validated with a criterion of correct identification rate of 50% in the original test and 90% in the quick test. Items with over 90% correct identification rate in the modified original test were included in the quick test, resulting in a 10-item test.

Results The modified retronasal olfactory test achieved good test characteristics, with a 10th percentile cut-off value of 13: sensitivity was 88.9%, specificity 83.0%, positive predictive value 78%, negative predictive value 91.7%, and the receiver operating characteristics area under the curve (ROC-AUC) was 0.86. The quick test achieved acceptable test characteristics, with a 10th percentile cut-off value of 8.2: sensitivity was 72.2%, specificity 90.6%, positive predictive value 83.9%, negative predictive value was 82.8%, and ROC-AUC 0.81.

Conclusion Validation of both tests demonstrated satisfactory accuracy. We recommend the quick test for screening purposes, and the modified original version for a thorough evaluation. The tests are easily implemented as they are easy to understand and very affordable.

Keywords

smell - olfaction disorders - anosmia - diagnosis - validation study


Publication History

Received: 08 April 2021

Accepted: 08 August 2021

Article published online:
22 February 2022

© 2022. Fundação Otorrinolaringologia. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil

 

  • References

  • 1 Bojanowski V, Hummel T. Retronasal perception of odors. Physiol Behav 2012; 107 (04) 484-487
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Murphy C, Cain WS, Bartoshuk LM. Mutual action of taste and olfaction. Sens Processes 1977; 1 (03) 204-211
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Spence C. Multisensory flavour perception. Curr Biol 2013; 23 (09) R365-R369
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Landis BN, Konnerth CG, Hummel T. A study on the frequency of olfactory dysfunction. Laryngoscope 2004; 114 (10) 1764-1769
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Brämerson A, Johansson L, Ek L, Nordin S, Bende M. Prevalence of olfactory dysfunction: the skövde population-based study. Laryngoscope 2004; 114 (04) 733-737
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Vennemann MM, Hummel T, Berger K. The association between smoking and smell and taste impairment in the general population. J Neurol 2008; 255 (08) 1121-1126
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Croy I, Nordin S, Hummel T. Olfactory disorders and quality of life–an updated review. Chem Senses 2014; 39 (03) 185-194
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Oleszkiewicz A, Park D, Resler K. et al. Quality of Life in Patients With Olfactory Loss Is Better Predicted by Flavor Identification Than by Orthonasal Olfactory Function. Chem Senses 2019; 44 (06) 371-377
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Özay H, Çakır A, Ecevit MC. Retronasal Olfaction Test Methods: A Systematic Review. Balkan Med J 2019; 36 (01) 49-59
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Croy I, Hoffmann H, Philpott C. et al. Retronasal testing of olfactory function: an investigation and comparison in seven countries. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2014; 271 (05) 1087-1095
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Heilmann S, Strehle G, Rosenheim K, Damm M, Hummel T. Clinical assessment of retronasal olfactory function. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2002; 128 (04) 414-418
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Salihoglu M, Altundag A, Cayonu M, Tekeli H. An investigation of retronasal testing of olfactory function in a Turkish population. Med Sci Monit 2014; 20: 569-576
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Niklassen AS, Ovesen T, Fernandes H, Fjaeldstad AW. Danish validation of sniffin' sticks olfactory test for threshold, discrimination, and identification. Laryngoscope 2018; 128 (08) 1759-1766
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Fjaeldstad A, Sundbøll J, Niklassen A, Ovesen T. Odor Familiarity and Identification Abilities in Adolescents. Chem Senses 2017; 42 (03) 239-246
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Hummel T, Sekinger B, Wolf SR, Pauli E, Kobal G. ‘Sniffin’ sticks': olfactory performance assessed by the combined testing of odor identification, odor discrimination and olfactory threshold. Chem Senses 1997; 22 (01) 39-52
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Niklassen AS, Draf J, Huart C, Hintschich C, Bocksberger S, Trecca EMC, Klimek L, Le Bon SD, Altundag A, Hummel T. (2021), COVID-19: Recovery from Chemosensory Dysfunction. A Multicentre study on Smell and Taste. The Laryngoscope. 131: 1095-1100
    CrossrefPubMed
  • 17 Welge-Lüssen A, Dörig P, Wolfensberger M, Krone F, Hummel T. A study about the frequency of taste disorders. J Neurol 2011; 258 (03) 386-392
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Liu DT, Besser G, Renner B, Seyferth S, Hummel T, Mueller CA. Retronasal olfactory function in patients with smell loss but subjectively normal flavor perception. Laryngoscope 2020; 130 (07) 1629-1633
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Landis BN, Frasnelli J, Reden J, Lacroix JS, Hummel T. Differences between orthonasal and retronasal olfactory functions in patients with loss of the sense of smell. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2005; 131 (11) 977-981
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Pfaar O, Landis BN, Frasnelli J, Hüttenbrink KB, Hummel T. Mechanical obstruction of the olfactory cleft reveals differences between orthonasal and retronasal olfactory functions. Chem Senses 2006; 31 (01) 27-31
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Rombaux P, Mouraux A, Bertrand B, Nicolas G, Duprez T, Hummel T. Retronasal and orthonasal olfactory function in relation to olfactory bulb volume in patients with posttraumatic loss of smell. Laryngoscope 2006; 116 (06) 901-905
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Rombaux P, Weitz H, Mouraux A. et al. Olfactory function assessed with orthonasal and retronasal testing, olfactory bulb volume, and chemosensory event-related potentials. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2006; 132 (12) 1346-1351
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar