Gaining Back What Is Lost: Recovering the Sense of Smell in Mild to Moderate Patients After COVID-19

The purpose of our cohort study was to quantify olfactory deficits in Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients using Sniffin’ Sticks and a pre-post design to evaluate olfactory recovery. Thirty adult patients with laboratory-confirmed mild to moderate forms of COVID-19 underwent a quantitative olfactory test performed with the Sniffin’ Sticks test (SST; Burghardt, Wedel, Germany), considering olfactory threshold (T), odor discrimination (D), and odor identification (I). Results were presented as a composite TDI score (range 1–48) that used to define functional anosmia (TDI ≤ 16.5), hyposmia (16.5 < TDI < 30.5), or functionally normal ability to smell (TDI ≥ 30.5). Patients also self-evaluated their olfactory function by rating their ability to smell on a visual analogue scale (Visual Analog Scale rating) and answering a validated Italian questionnaire (Hyposmia Rating Scale). Patients were tested during hospitalization and about 2 months after symptoms onset. During the hospitalization, the overall TDI score indicated that our cohort had impairments in their olfactory ability (10% was diagnosed with anosmia and more than 50% were hyposmic). Almost all patients showed a significant improvement at around 1 month following the first test and for all the parts of the SST except for odor identification. None of the subjects at 1 month was still diagnosed with anosmia. We also quantified the improvement in the TDI score based on initial diagnosis. Anosmic subjects showed a greater improvement than hyposmic and normosmic subjects. In conclusion, within a month time window and 2 months after symptoms’ onset, in our cohort of patients we observed a substantial improvement in the olfactory abilities.

Validation of the Non-communicating Children's Pain Checklist–Postoperative Version

Background This study evaluated the psychometric properties of the Non-communicating Children's Pain Checklist-Postoperative Version (NCCPC-PV) when used with children with severe intellectual disabilities. Methods The caregivers of 24 children with severe intellectual disabilities (aged 3-19 yr) took part. Each child was observed by one of their caregivers and one of the researchers for 10 min before and after surgery. They independently completed the NCCPC-PV and made a visual analog scale rating of the child's pain intensity for those times. A nurse also completed a visual analog scale for the same observations. Results The NCCPC-PV was internally reliable (Cronbach alpha = 0.91) and showed good interrater reliability. A repeated-measures analysis of variance indicated NCCPC-PV total and subscale scores were significantly higher after surgery and did not differ by observer. Postoperative NCCPC-PV scores correlated with visual analog scale ratings provided by caregivers and researchers, but not with those of nurses. A score of 11 on the NCCPC-PV, by caregivers, provided 0.88 sensitivity and 0.81 specificity for classifying children with moderate to severe pain. Conclusions The NCCPC-PV displayed good psychometric properties when used for the postoperative pain of children with severe intellectual disabilities and has the potential to be useful in a clinical setting. The results suggest familiarity with an individual child with intellectual disabilities is not necessary for pain assessment.

Comparing Reliability of Perceptual Ratings of Roughness and Acoustic Measures of Jitter

Acoustic analysis is often favored over perceptual evaluation of voice because it is considered objective, and thus reliable. However, recent studies suggest this traditional bias is unwarranted. This study examined the relative reliability of human listeners and automatic systems for measuring perturbation in the evaluation of pathologic voices. Ten experienced listeners rated the roughness of 50 voice samples (ranging from normal to severely disordered) on a 75 mm visual analog scale. Rating reliability within and across listeners was compared to the reliability of jitter measures produced by several voice analysis systems (CSpeech, SoundScope, CSL, and an interactive hand-marking system). Results showed that overall listeners agreed as well or better than “objective” algorithms. Further, listeners disagreed in predictable ways, whereas automatic algorithms differed in seemingly random fashions. Finally, listener reliability increased with severity of pathology; objective methods quickly broke down as severity increased. These findings suggest that listeners and analysis packages differ greatly in their measurement characteristics. Acoustic measures may have advantages over perceptual measures for discriminating among essentially normal voices; however, reliability is not a good reason for preferring acoustic measures of perturbation to perceptual measures.