Applicability of the Cross-Culturally Modified University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test in a Japanese Population

2011 ◽  
Vol 25 (6) ◽  
pp. 404-410 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hitomi Ogihara ◽  
Masayoshi Kobayashi ◽  
Kohei Nishida ◽  
Masako Kitano ◽  
Kazuhiko Takeuchi
Keyword(s):  
Japanese Population ◽  
Japanese Version ◽  
Normal Subjects ◽  
Japanese Patients ◽  
Olfactory Function ◽  
Cultural Bias ◽  
University Of Pennsylvania ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Identification Test ◽  
Smell Identification

Background The University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) is a popular olfactory function test used throughout the world. In Japan, however, it is not widely used because it is written in English and some of the test odorants are unfamiliar to the Japanese population. Recently, a cross-culturally modified UPSIT was developed. This study was designed to determine if the Japanese version of the UPSIT (UPSIT-J) is effective in Japanese populations. Methods We administered the UPSIT-J to 50 normosmic Japanese subjects and 54 Japanese patients with known olfactory dysfunction. Subjects were also administered the Japanese standard olfactory threshold test (T&T olfactometry), the Odor Stick Identification Test for Japanese (OSIT-J) and i.v. olfactometry (the Alinamin test). Test results from the UPSIT-J and subjects’ opinions were compared with the standard Japanese tests of olfactory function. Results Most subjects reported that the UPSIT-J was easy and interesting compared with OSIT-J and easier and more interesting than the T&T olfactometry and Alinamin test. Identification rates for nine of the UPSIT-J odorants were found to be < 80% for normal subjects. UPSIT-J scores correlated with subjects’ self-reported levels of olfactory function (r s = 0.85), OSIT-J score (r s = 0.86), recognition threshold of the T&T olfactometry (r s = 0.80), and Alinamin test results (r s = 0.38 for latency; r s = 0.52 for duration time). Conclusion Although a cultural bias was detected for some test odorants, this study indicates that the UPSIT-J is effective for use in the clinic to assess olfactory function in the Japanese population.

scholarly journals Examination Techniques of the First Cranial Nerve: What Neurosurgical Residents Should Know

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (5) ◽  
pp. 124-129
Author(s):  
Leonard Leong Sang Xian ◽  
Vasu Nallaluthan ◽  
Yong De Jun ◽  
Ooi Lin-Wei ◽  
Sanihah Abdul Halim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cranial Nerve ◽  
Detection Threshold ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
Olfactory Function ◽  
University Of Pennsylvania ◽  
Threshold Test ◽  
Identification Test ◽  
Odour Discrimination ◽  
Examination Techniques ◽  
Smell Identification

Olfactory or smell dysfunction is often overlooked by clinicians despite being prevalent in the population. To date in Malaysia, there is no standard and reliable test to examine the function of olfaction. Tests used at developed countries such as the Sniffin’ Sticks Test (SST), the Connecticut Chemosensory Clinical Research Center (CCCRC) test, the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) and the Brief Smell Identification Test (B-SIT) are not readily available in this region and may be costly to procure. The first cranial nerve can be tested using commonly available materials to assess: i) the function of odour detection; ii) the odour discrimination; and iii) the odour identification. An abnormal odour detection threshold test generally indicates a peripheral olfactory problem while the odour discrimination and identification test attribute the problem to the cerebral cortex. An olfactory complaint should not be taken lightly and a proper olfactory function examination is important: i) to determine the legitimacy of a patient’s complaint; ii) to monitor the progress of patient’s olfactory function; iii) to establish insurance payout for disability; and iv) to characterise the specific nature of the problem. A video has been produced to demonstrate the examination techniques explained in this article.

scholarly journals Prevalence of olfactory dysfunction in COVID-19 patients

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammad Bayat ◽  
Amirmohammad Arabi ◽  
Amirali Assadi ◽  
Saina Nezami Nia ◽  
Masoud Mortezazadeh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Normal Population ◽  
Olfactory Dysfunction ◽  
Olfactory Function ◽  
University Of Pennsylvania ◽  
Infected People ◽  
Screening Programs ◽  
Identification Test ◽  
Back Ground ◽  
The University ◽  
Smell Identification

Back ground: Nowadays COVID-19 has become a pandemic in which global society experience multiple difficulties in management. It seems that olfactory dysfunction is one of the early occurring symptoms of this viral infection and many patients just show this symptom after they got infected. Considering so, olfactory dysfunction especially a decline in olfaction could potentially be used for screening purposes and preventing the disease to spread. Methods: 50 PCR-verified SARS-CoV-2 infected participants were assessed about their olfactory function adequacy using a Modified Version of the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) for the Iranian population called Iran Smell Identification Test (Iran-SIT). Participants scores were compared against normal population scores in this test and possible correlations of age and scores were explored as well Results: Participants with SARS-CoV-2 infection generally obtained lesser scores in the mentioned test which means they experience a decline in olfactory function more, significantly. Aging also has a negative correlation with olfaction adequacy. Conclusion: Based on this article’s finding, olfactory function decrease is more frequent among SARS-CoV-2 infected people and potentially could be a suggestive indicator for screening programs. This indicator should be interpreted concerning patients’ age.

scholarly journals Severe Hyposmia Distinguishes Neuropathologically Confirmed Dementia with Lewy Bodies from Alzheimer’s Disease Dementia

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
TG Beach ◽  
CH Adler ◽  
N Zhang ◽  
GE Serrano ◽  
LI Sue ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Alzheimer’S Disease ◽  
Alzheimer's Disease ◽  
Dementia With Lewy Bodies ◽  
Lewy Bodies ◽  
Normal Subjects ◽  
Olfactory Function ◽  
University Of Pennsylvania ◽  
Function Testing ◽  
Alzheimer’S Disease Dementia ◽  
Smell Identification

AbstractDue to the absence of core clinical features, many subjects with neuropathologically-confirmed dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) are never diagnosed as such during life. Most of these are diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease dementia (ADD) or unspecified dementia. Unrecognized DLB therefore is a critical impediment to clinical studies and treatment trials of both ADD and DLB. There are numerous published studies that suggest that olfactory function tests may be able to differentiate some neurodegenerative conditions from each other and from normal subjects, but there are very few studies with neuropathological confirmation of diagnosis. We compared University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) results in 209 subjects: 1) 29 concurrently meeting intermediate or high consensus clinicopathological criteria for both DLB and ADD 2) 96 meeting criteria for ADD without DLB 3) 84 control subjects that were non-demented and without parkinsonism at death. The DLB subjects had significantly lower (one-way ANOVA p < 0.0001, pairwise Bonferroni p < 0.05) first and mean UPSIT scores (13.7 and 13.2) than ADD (23.3 and 22.2) or controls (29.6 and 28.9). For subjects with first and mean UPSIT scores less than 20 and 17, respectively, Firth logistic regression analysis, adjusted for age, gender and mean MMSE score, conferred statistically significant odds ratios of 17.5 and 18.0 for predicting a DLB vs ADD diagnosis, as compared to 3.3 for the presence or absence of visual hallucinations throughout the clinical observation period. To our knowledge, this is the largest study to date comparing olfactory function in subjects with neuropathologically confirmed DLB and ADD. Olfactory function testing may be a convenient and inexpensive strategy for enriching dementia studies or clinical trials with DLB subjects, or conversely, reducing the inclusion of DLB subjects in ADD studies or trials.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document