
Objectives/HypothesisPatients with olfactory dysfunction benefit from repeated exposure to odors, so‐called olfactory training (OT). This does not mean occasional smelling but the structured sniffing of a defined set of odors, twice daily, for a period of 4 months or longer. In this prospective study, we investigated whether the effect of OT might increase through the use of more odors and extension of the training period.Study Design and MethodsThis study shows OT results when performed with four or 12 odors for 36 weeks in patients with postinfectious olfactory dysfunction. A total of 85 subjects participated (mean age 45.6 ± 10.5 years, range 24–68 years). Three groups were formed: 1) In the modified olfactory training (MOT) group, patients used three sets of four different odors sequentially. 2) Participants in the classical odor training (COT) group used four odors. 3) Participants in the control group did not perform OT. All groups were matched for age and sex distribution of participants.ResultsBoth participants in the COT and MOT groups reached better scores than controls in terms of odor discrimination and odor identification. Continuing OT with four different odors after the 12th and 24th weeks produced better results in terms of odor discrimination and odor identification scores as compared to using the same four odors throughout the entire study.ConclusionThis study confirmed the effectiveness of OT. Increasing the duration of OT and changing the odors enhances the success rate of this therapy.Level of Evidence2b. Laryngoscope, 125:1763–1766, 2015
Adult, Male, Endoscopy, Middle Aged, Infections, Smell, Olfaction Disorders, Young Adult, Otorhinolaryngology, Patient Education as Topic, Patient Satisfaction, Humans, Female, Aged, Follow-Up Studies
Adult, Male, Endoscopy, Middle Aged, Infections, Smell, Olfaction Disorders, Young Adult, Otorhinolaryngology, Patient Education as Topic, Patient Satisfaction, Humans, Female, Aged, Follow-Up Studies
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 175 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 1% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% |
