Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

The usefulness of a quantitative olfactory test for the detection of COVID-19

Marcos A Lessa, Stella M Cotta-Pereira, Frederico A Ferreira, View ORCID ProfileTherezinha Marta P P Castiñeiras, Rafael M Galliez, View ORCID ProfileDébora S Faffe, Isabela de C Leitão, Diana Mariani, Erica R Nascimento, Flávia S Lessa, Isabela Brasil Succi, Carlos A Pedreira
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.01.20.21250173
Marcos A Lessa
1Laboratory of Cardiovascular Investigation – Oswaldo Cruz Institute (IOC/Fiocruz), Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: malessa{at}ioc.fiocruz.br
Stella M Cotta-Pereira
1Laboratory of Cardiovascular Investigation – Oswaldo Cruz Institute (IOC/Fiocruz), Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Frederico A Ferreira
1Laboratory of Cardiovascular Investigation – Oswaldo Cruz Institute (IOC/Fiocruz), Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Therezinha Marta P P Castiñeiras
2Medical School, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Therezinha Marta P P Castiñeiras
Rafael M Galliez
2Medical School, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Débora S Faffe
3Institute of Biophysics Carlos Chagas Filho, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Débora S Faffe
Isabela de C Leitão
3Institute of Biophysics Carlos Chagas Filho, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Diana Mariani
4Laboratoty of Molecular Biology, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Erica R Nascimento
4Laboratoty of Molecular Biology, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Flávia S Lessa
5Occupational health Division, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Isabela Brasil Succi
5Occupational health Division, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Carlos A Pedreira
6Systems and Computing Department, COPPE, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Supplementary material
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background During the COVID-19 pandemic, olfactory dysfunction (anosmia or hyposmia) has been reported by many patients and recognized as a prevalent and early symptom of infection. This finding has been associated with viral-induced olfactory neuron dysfunction rather than the nasal congestion typically found in cold- or flu-like states. In literature, the prevalence of anosmia varies from 15% to 85%, and the studies, in general, were based on the subjective evaluation of patients’ self-reports of loss of smell (yes or no question). In the present study, we quantitatively evaluated olfactory dysfunction and the prevalence of fever in symptomatic patients suspected of having COVID-19 using a scratch-and-sniff olfactory test and infrared temperature testing with RT-PCR as the gold-standard comparator method to diagnose COVID-19 infection.

Methods Outpatients had their forehead temperature checked with an infrared non-contact thermometer (temperature guns). After that, they received two olfactory smell identification test (SIT) cards (u-Smell-it™; CT, USA) that each had 5 scent windows and were asked to scratch with a pencil and sniff each of the 10 small circles containing the microencapsulated fragrances and mark the best option on a response card. Nasopharyngeal swabs were then collected for Reverse Transcriptase-Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) to determine if the patients were positive or negative for COVID-19 infection. We considered the number of ‘hits’ (correct answers) ≤ 5 as positive for loss of smell (LOS) in the olfactory test; ≥ 6 hits was considered negative for LOS (i.e. normal olfactory function). All data were analyzed using Excel and Matlab software.

Results In the present study, 165 patients were eligible for the olfactory test and nasopharyngeal swab collection RT-PCR. Five patients were excluded because of inconclusive PCR results (n=2) and missing data (n=3). A total of 160 patients completed all the protocols. The RT-PCR positivity rate for COVID-19 was 27.5% (n=44), and PCR+ patients scored significantly worse in the olfactory test (5.5±3.5) compared to RT-PCR-patients (8.2±1.8, p<0.001). 0/44 PCR+ patients presented with a fever (≥37.8°C). In contrast an olfactory SIT had a specificity of 94.8% (95% CI, 89.1 – 98.1), sensitivity of 47.7% (95% CI, 32.7 – 63.3), accuracy of 0.82 (95% CI, 0.75 – 0.87), positive predictive value of 77.8% (95% CI, 59.6 – 88.8), negative predictive value of 82.7% (85% CI, 78.7 – 86.7), and odds ratio of 16.7.

Conclusion Our results suggest that temperature checking failed to detect COVID-19 infection, while an olfactory test may be useful to help identify COVID-19 infection in symptomatic patients.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Clinical Trial

This work was approved by the local Institutional Research Board and National Commission of Ethics in Research (CEP/CONEP system). However, the registration on the Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials (ReBEC) and trial ID are pending due to bureaucratic issues.

Funding Statement

Grants from CNPq supported this work - Brazilian National Research Council and FAPERJ - Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Rio de Janeiro

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

The local ethics committee approved the study from Clementino Fraga Filho University Hospital (CAAE: 30161620.0.0000.5257). Written informed consent was obtained from all participants.

All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

Footnotes

  • The authors declare no conflict of interest

  • Funding: This work was supported by grants from CNPq - Brazilian National Research Council and FAPERJ - Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Rio de Janeiro

Data Availability

All data from this paper will be available at the Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials (ReBEC)

https://ensaiosclinicos.gov.br/welcome#menu

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-ND 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted January 26, 2021.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The usefulness of a quantitative olfactory test for the detection of COVID-19
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
The usefulness of a quantitative olfactory test for the detection of COVID-19
Marcos A Lessa, Stella M Cotta-Pereira, Frederico A Ferreira, Therezinha Marta P P Castiñeiras, Rafael M Galliez, Débora S Faffe, Isabela de C Leitão, Diana Mariani, Erica R Nascimento, Flávia S Lessa, Isabela Brasil Succi, Carlos A Pedreira
medRxiv 2021.01.20.21250173; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.01.20.21250173
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
The usefulness of a quantitative olfactory test for the detection of COVID-19
Marcos A Lessa, Stella M Cotta-Pereira, Frederico A Ferreira, Therezinha Marta P P Castiñeiras, Rafael M Galliez, Débora S Faffe, Isabela de C Leitão, Diana Mariani, Erica R Nascimento, Flávia S Lessa, Isabela Brasil Succi, Carlos A Pedreira
medRxiv 2021.01.20.21250173; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.01.20.21250173

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS)
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (349)
  • Allergy and Immunology (668)
  • Allergy and Immunology (668)
  • Anesthesia (181)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (2648)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (316)
  • Dermatology (223)
  • Emergency Medicine (399)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (942)
  • Epidemiology (12228)
  • Forensic Medicine (10)
  • Gastroenterology (759)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (4103)
  • Geriatric Medicine (387)
  • Health Economics (680)
  • Health Informatics (2657)
  • Health Policy (1005)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (985)
  • Hematology (363)
  • HIV/AIDS (851)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (13695)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (797)
  • Medical Education (399)
  • Medical Ethics (109)
  • Nephrology (436)
  • Neurology (3882)
  • Nursing (209)
  • Nutrition (577)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (739)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (695)
  • Oncology (2030)
  • Ophthalmology (585)
  • Orthopedics (240)
  • Otolaryngology (306)
  • Pain Medicine (250)
  • Palliative Medicine (75)
  • Pathology (473)
  • Pediatrics (1115)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (466)
  • Primary Care Research (452)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (3432)
  • Public and Global Health (6527)
  • Radiology and Imaging (1403)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (814)
  • Respiratory Medicine (871)
  • Rheumatology (409)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (410)
  • Sports Medicine (342)
  • Surgery (448)
  • Toxicology (53)
  • Transplantation (185)
  • Urology (165)