European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2024
The efficacy of olfactory training in improving olfactory function: a meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Delgado-Lima Alice Helena, Bouhaben Jaime, Delgado-Losada María Luisa
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Study the efficacy of olfactory training in smell recovery.
METHODS: An extensive search was performed through different databases in order to find articles analyzing the efficacy of olfactory training as a treatment for olfactory dysfunction. Methodological quality of primary studies within the final sample was assessed following PRISMA guidelines. Standardized mean differences in pre-post olfactory training groups, and also in experimental-control and pre-follow up if possible, were computed by Hedges' g effect size statistic. Each effect size was weighted by its inverse variance.
RESULTS: Final sample was composed of 36 articles (45 pre-post effect sizes). Contrasts were performed separately for odor identification, odor discrimination, odor threshold and general olfactory function. Moderate to large and heterogeneous effect was obtained for olfactory function (g = 0.755, k = 45, SE = 0.093, CI 95% = [0.572, 0.937]), different moderators had a significant effects, such as, training duration, age and anosmia diagnosis.
CONCLUSION: Olfactory training was found to have a positive and significant effect on rehabilitating the olfactory function.
METHODS: An extensive search was performed through different databases in order to find articles analyzing the efficacy of olfactory training as a treatment for olfactory dysfunction. Methodological quality of primary studies within the final sample was assessed following PRISMA guidelines. Standardized mean differences in pre-post olfactory training groups, and also in experimental-control and pre-follow up if possible, were computed by Hedges' g effect size statistic. Each effect size was weighted by its inverse variance.
RESULTS: Final sample was composed of 36 articles (45 pre-post effect sizes). Contrasts were performed separately for odor identification, odor discrimination, odor threshold and general olfactory function. Moderate to large and heterogeneous effect was obtained for olfactory function (g = 0.755, k = 45, SE = 0.093, CI 95% = [0.572, 0.937]), different moderators had a significant effects, such as, training duration, age and anosmia diagnosis.
CONCLUSION: Olfactory training was found to have a positive and significant effect on rehabilitating the olfactory function.