Dataset Information

Smoking and olfactory dysfunction: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS:A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature was undertaken, examining the association between tobacco smoking and olfactory function in humans, utilizing PubMed and Web of Science (1970-2015) as data sources. STUDY DESIGN:Systematic literature review and meta-analysis. METHODS:This database review of studies of smoking and olfaction, with a focus on identifying high-quality studies (based on modified versions of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale), used validated olfactory tests among the generally healthy population. RESULTS:We identified 11 studies meeting inclusion criteria. Of 10 cross-sectional studies, two were excluded from meta-analysis because the cohorts they studied were included in another article in the review. In meta-analysis, current smokers had substantially higher odds of olfactory dysfunction compared to never smokers (odds ratio [OR] = 1.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.37-1.85). In contrast, former smokers were found to have no difference in risk of impaired olfaction compared to never smokers (OR = 1.05, 95% CI = 0.91-1.21). The single longitudinal study reviewed found a trend toward increased risk of olfactory decline over time in ever smokers; this trend was stronger in current as compared to former smokers. CONCLUSIONS:Current smoking, but not former smoking, is associated with significantly increased risk of olfactory dysfunction, suggesting that the effects of smoking on olfaction may be reversible. Future studies that prospectively evaluate the impact of smoking cessation on improvement in olfactory function are warranted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:N/A. Laryngoscope, 127:1753-1761, 2017.

SUBMITTER: Ajmani GS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6731037 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Smoking and olfactory dysfunction: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

Ajmani Gaurav S GS Suh Helen H HH Wroblewski Kristen E KE Pinto Jayant M JM

The Laryngoscope 20170531 8

<h4>Objectives/hypothesis</h4>A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature was undertaken, examining the association between tobacco smoking and olfactory function in humans, utilizing PubMed and Web of Science (1970-2015) as data sources.<h4>Study design</h4>Systematic literature review and meta-analysis.<h4>Methods</h4>This database review of studies of smoking and olfaction, with a focus on identifying high-quality studies (based on modified versions of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale), ...[more]

PMID: 28561327

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) for postviral olfactory dysfunction (PVOD).MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, China Network Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Scientific Journal Database (VIP), Chinese Biomedical and Medical (CBM) Database, and Wanfang Database were electronically searched from their inception to July 25, 2022. Two authors independently performed study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment to ensure systematic quality evaluation. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TCM with olfactory training and/or drug therapy (OTDT) were included. The outcomes were the effective rate, QOD-P, TDI score, UPSIT score, and adverse effects. Cochrane RoB was the guideline used to evaluate the methodological quality of the included trials. RevMan 5.3 software was used for statistical analysis.ResultsA total of 6 RCTs involving 467 patients with PVOD were selected. Compared with OTDT, TCM plus OTDT decreased QOD-P (MD = -1.73, 95% CI (-2.40, -1.06), P < 0.0001) but did not increase the effective rate (T&T) (RR = 1.28, 95% CI (0.86, 1.90), P=0.22, I 2 = 61%). Compared with no treatment, TCM seemed to increase the treatment success rate (UPSIT) (RR = 3.17, 95% CI (1.78, 5.65), P < 0.0001, I 2 = 0%), but there was no statistically significant difference in improving the UPSIT score (MD = 3.44, 95% CI (-1.36, 8.24), P=0.16). Compared with drug therapy, TCM plus drug therapy appeared to increase the effective rate (ΔVAS) (RR = 2.36, 95% CI (1.41, 3.94), I 2 = 0%), but there was no statistically significant difference in improving the TDI score (MD = 2.10, 95% CI (-1.99, 6.19), P=0.31). No significant differences in adverse reactions were reported between TCM and OTDT.ConclusionTCM may be an effective treatment for PVOD. With a lack of high-quality RCTs, further large-scale and high-quality RCTs are still warranted.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Smoking remains the leading preventable cause of premature deaths. Several pharmacological interventions now exist to aid smokers in cessation. These include Nicotine Replacement Therapy [NRT], bupropion, and varenicline. We aimed to assess their relative efficacy in smoking cessation by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched 10 electronic medical databases (inception to Sept. 2006) and bibliographies of published reviews. We selected randomized controlled trials [RCTs] evaluating interventions for smoking cessation at 1 year, through chemical confirmation. Our primary endpoint was smoking cessation at 1 year. Secondary endpoints included short-term smoking cessation (approximately 3 months) and adverse events. We conducted random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression. We compared treatment effects across interventions using head-to-head trials and when these did not exist, we calculated indirect comparisons. RESULTS: We identified 70 trials of NRT versus control at 1 year, Odds Ratio [OR] 1.71, 95% Confidence Interval [CI], 1.55-1.88, P =< 0.0001). This was consistent when examining all placebo-controlled trials (49 RCTs, OR 1.78, 95% CI, 1.60-1.99), NRT gum (OR 1.60, 95% CI, 1.37-1.86) or patch (OR 1.63, 95% CI, 1.41-1.89). NRT also reduced smoking at 3 months (OR 1.98, 95% CI, 1.77-2.21). Bupropion trials were superior to controls at 1 year (12 RCTs, OR1.56, 95% CI, 1.10-2.21, P = 0.01) and at 3 months (OR 2.13, 95% CI, 1.72-2.64). Two RCTs evaluated the superiority of bupropion versus NRT at 1 year (OR 1.14, 95% CI, 0.20-6.42). Varenicline was superior to placebo at 1 year (4 RCTs, OR 2.96, 95% CI, 2.12-4.12, P =< 0.0001) and also at approximately 3 months (OR 3.75, 95% CI, 2.65-5.30). Three RCTs evaluated the effectiveness of varenicline versus bupropion at 1 year (OR 1.58, 95% CI, 1.22-2.05) and at approximately 3 months (OR 1.61, 95% CI, 1.16-2.21). Using indirect comparisons, varenicline was superior to NRT when compared to placebo controls (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.17-2.36, P = 0.004) or to all controls at 1 year (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.22-2.45, P = 0.001). This was also the case for 3-month data. Adverse events were not systematically different across studies. CONCLUSION: NRT, bupropion and varenicline all provide therapeutic effects in assisting with smoking cessation. Direct and indirect comparisons identify a hierarchy of effectiveness.

Dataset Information

Smoking and olfactory dysfunction: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Smoking and olfactory dysfunction: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets