Dataset Information

A Systematic Review of Imaging Studies in Olfactory Dysfunction Secondary to COVID-19.

ABSTRACT:

Rationale and objectives

Hyposmia/anosmia is common among patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Various imaging modalities have been used to assess olfactory dysfunction in COVID-19. In this systematic review, we sought to categorize and summarize the imaging data in COVID-19-induced anosmia.

Material and methods

Eligible articles were included after a comprehensive review using online databases including Google scholar, Scopus, PubMed, Web of science and Elsevier. Duplicate results, conference abstracts, reviews, and studies in languages other than English were excluded.

Results

In total, 305 patients undergoing MRI/functional MRI (177), CT of paranasal sinuses (129), and PET/CT or PET/MRI scans (14) were included. Out of a total of 218 findings reported on MRI, 80 were reported on early (≤ 1 month) and 85 on late (>1 month) imaging in relation to the onset of anosmia. Overall, OB morphology and T2-weighted or FLAIR signal intensity were normal in 68/218 (31.2%), while partial or complete opacification of OC was observed in 60/218 (27.5%). T2 hyperintensity in OB was detected in 11/80 (13.75%) and 18/85 (21.17%) on early and late imaging, respectively. Moreover, OB atrophy was reported in 1/80 (1.25%) on early and in 9/85 (10.58%) on late imaging. Last, among a total of 129 CT scans included, paranasal sinuses were evalualted in 88 (68.21%), which were reported as normal in most cases (77/88, [87.5%]).

Conclusion

In this systematic review, normal morphology and T2/FLAIR signal intensity in OB and OC obstruction were the most common findings in COVID-19-induced anosmia, while paranasal sinuses were normal in most cases. OC obstruction is the likely mechanism for olfactory dysfunction in COVID-19. Abnormalities in OB signal intensity and OB atrophy suggest that central mechanisms may also play a role in late stage in COVID-19-induced anosmia.

SUBMITTER: Keshavarz P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8403662 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere is a lack of overview of the tools used to assess qualitative olfactory dysfunction, including parosmia and phantosmia, following COVID-19 illness. This could have an impact on the diagnosis and treatment offered to patients. Additionally, the formulations of symptoms are inconsistent and often unclear, and consensus around the wording of questions and responses is needed.Aim of studyThe aim of this systematic review is to provide an overview of tools used to assess qualitative olfactory dysfunction after COVID-19, in addition to addressing the content validity (i.e., item and response formulations) of these tools.MethodsMEDLINE, Web of Science, and EMBASE were searched 5th of August 2022 and updated on the 25th of April 2023 to identify studies that assess qualitative olfactory dysfunction in COVID-19 patients. Primary outcomes were the tool used (i.e., questionnaire or objective test) and item and response formulations. Secondary outcomes included psychometric properties, study design, and demographic variables.ResultsThe assessment of qualitative olfactory dysfunction is characterized by heterogeneity, inconsistency, and lack of validated tools to determine the presence and degree of symptoms. Several tools with overlapping and distinct features were identified in this review, of which some were thorough and detailed, while others were merely assessing the presence of symptoms as a binary measure. Item and response formulations are also inconsistent and often used interchangeably, which may lead to confusion, incorrect diagnoses, and inappropriate methods for solving the problem.ConclusionsThere is an unmet need for a reliable and validated tool for assessing qualitative olfactory dysfunction, preferably one that also captures quantitative olfactory issues (i.e., loss of smell), to ensure time-effective and specific assessment of the ability to smell. A consensus around the formulation of items and response options is also important to increase the understanding of the problem, both for clinicians, researchers, and the patient, and ultimately to provide the appropriate diagnosis and treatment.Registration and protocolThe URL is https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=351621. A preregistered protocol was submitted and accepted (12.09.22) in the International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) with the registration number CRD42022351621.