310
Views
6
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Meta-analysis

Smell tests to distinguish Parkinson’s disease from other neurological disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis

, , & ORCID Icon
Pages 365-379 | Received 28 Nov 2020, Accepted 03 Feb 2021, Published online: 09 Mar 2021
 

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Olfactory impairment has been considered for differential diagnosis in Parkinson’s disease (PD) patients. The authors aimed to identify the tests used to assess the olfactory function in PD patients and examine these tests’ ability to distinguish them from other neurological disorders.

Areas covered: Cross-sectional studies published until May 2020 comparing the olfactory function of PD patients to other neurological disorders were searched on PubMed, PsycInfo, Cinahl, and Web of Science databases using search terms related to PD, olfactory function, and assessment. Five thousand three hundred and four studies were screened, and 35 were included in the systematic review. Six smell tests that evaluated a total of 1,544 PD patients were identified. Data of 1,144 patients included in the meta-analyses revealed worse smell performance than individuals with other neurological disorders, such as progressive supranuclear palsy and essential tremor, but not with idiopathic rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder.

Expert opinion: The University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test was the most used test to assess the olfactory function of PD. Smell loss was worse in PD than in some neurological disorders. The smell tests’ ability in differentiating PD from other neurological disorders still deserves more attention in future studies. Protocol register (PROSPERO/2018-CRD42018107009).

Declaration of interest

LOP Costa and SMSF Freitas have received productivity fellowships from Brazil’s National Council for Technological and Scientific Development (CNPq). CCG Alonso and FG Silva received scholarships from Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES)/Brazil. None of the funding is directly related to the execution of the study. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript apart from those disclosed.

Reviewer disclosures

Peer reviewers on this manuscript have no relevant financial or other relationships to disclose.

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.

Additional information

Funding

This paper was not funded.

Log in via your institution

Log in to Taylor & Francis Online

PDF download + Online access

  • 48 hours access to article PDF & online version
  • Article PDF can be downloaded
  • Article PDF can be printed
USD 99.00 Add to cart

Issue Purchase

  • 30 days online access to complete issue
  • Article PDFs can be downloaded
  • Article PDFs can be printed
USD 651.00 Add to cart

* Local tax will be added as applicable

Related Research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.