Next Article in Journal
Carpal Tunnel Syndrome in Elite Female Tug-of-War Athletes: Prevalence and Risk Factor Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
Advancing Kidney Transplantation: A Machine Learning Approach to Enhance Donor–Recipient Matching
Previous Article in Special Issue
Comparative Efficacy of Different Therapeutic Interventions in Eustachian Tube Dysfunctions: A Cross-Sectional Analysis
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diagnostics
Volume 14
Issue 19
10.3390/diagnostics14192121
diagnostics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

A Pilot Study of the Computerized Brief Smell Identification Test

by
Rong-San Jiang
1,2,3 and
Yi-Fang Chiang
4,*
1
Department of Otolaryngology, Taichung Veterans General Hospital, Taichung 40705, Taiwan
2
Department of Medical Research, Taichung Veterans General Hospital, Taichung 40705, Taiwan
3
School of Medicine, Chung Shan Medical University, Taichung 40201, Taiwan
4
School of Medicine, College of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei 30010, Taiwan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diagnostics 2024, 14(19), 2121; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14192121
Submission received: 15 August 2024 / Revised: 13 September 2024 / Accepted: 24 September 2024 / Published: 25 September 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Diagnosis and Management in Otolaryngology 2024)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Objectives: A self-administered Computerized Brief Smell Identification Test (cB-SIT) was developed recently to perform the olfactory identification test under computer control. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical applicability of the cB-SIT as compared with the traditional Brief Smell Identification Test (B-SIT). Methods: Sixty healthy volunteers with self-reported normal olfactory function, 30 hyposmic patients, and 30 anosmic patients were enrolled from June 2023 to May 2024. All enrolled participants received both B-SIT and cB-SIT in a random order to measure their odor identification ability. Thirty healthy volunteers took the second B-SIT and cB-SIT at least one week later. Results: The score was significantly different in both B-SIT and cB-SIT among healthy volunteers, hyposmic, and anosmic patients. The correct answer rate was significantly different in 10 items of the B-SIT and in 7 items of the cB-SIT among the three groups, but the post hoc test showed significant differences in correct answer rates between healthy volunteers and hyposmic patients in 7 items of both the B-SIT and cB-SIT. Test–retest results showed the score of the second B-SIT test was significantly higher than that of the first test, but the scores of the two tests of the cB-SIT were not significantly different. In the B-SIT, the lemon odorant had a higher correct answer rate in the second test than in the first test, but in the cB-SIT, the correct answer rate was not significantly different between the first and second tests in all 12 items. Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate that the cB-SIT was similar to the B-SIT and can be administered in the diagnosis of patients with olfactory dysfunction.

1. Introduction

The function of the olfactory system allows people to detect food and hazards. Olfactory dysfunction results in a substantial adverse influence on quality of life. Loss of olfactory function is also a prodromal marker for Parkinson’s disease and is implicated in a range of other neurological and psychiatric disorders including Alzheimer’s disease, schizophrenia, and major depression [1]. However, people are generally unaware of olfactory loss until formal testing, highlighting the necessity of a subjective measurement of olfactory function.
A comprehensive smell test is comprised of an odor threshold test, an odor discrimination test and, an odor identification test [2]. The odor identification test is more sensitive than the odor threshold test or odor discrimination test to detect Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases [3]. The self-administered University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT), which consists of 40 individual tests, is one of the most commonly used odor identification tests [4]. However, a few of its items or responses are unfamiliar to non–North Americans [5]. Therefore, the same group developed a 12-item odor identification test based upon items from the UPSIT [6]. The Cross-Cultural Smell Identification Test, which is also known as the Brief Smell Identification Test (B-SIT), was developed and contains 12 UPSIT items that are familiar to most persons from North American, European, South American, and Asian cultures [7].
The B-SIT employs the following odorants: cinnamon, turpentine, lemon, smoke, chocolate, rose, paint thinner, banana, pineapple, gasoline, soap, and onion [8]. It is contained in a single booklet. The odorants are embedded in 10–50 μm microcapsules fixed in a proprietary binder and positioned on scent strips on the bottom of the pages of the test booklets. To conduct the test, the examiner uses an enveloped pencil to scratch the odor strip, releasing the odorant. Thereafter, the strip is placed beneath the subject’s nose, and the subject is asked to identify the odor from a set of four descriptors. A response is required for each item even if no odor is perceived [9]. The test score is determined by the number of correctly identified odors and can range from 0 to 12 [10]. It can be self-administered in less than 5 min [7]. Currently, the B-SIT is widely used to assess olfactory function in multicultural countries [11,12,13].
A computer-controlled olfactometer for a self-administered odor identification test has been designed to save time and cost in clinical practice [14]. A benefit of this computer-controlled olfactometer compared with traditional self-administered odor identification tests, is that the odors are not contaminated by inadequate operation by the examinees [15]. It employs 10 odorants: pear, rose, apple, cinnamon, peppermint, coffee, chocolate, cola, melon, and orange [14]. In a study, it was concluded that it was appropriate for a self-administered odor identification test based on its validity and test–retest reliability [14]. Recently, a new version of the Self-administered Computerized Olfactory Testing System (SCOTS) has been developed. It can perform both the threshold test and the Computerized Brief Smell Identification Test (cB-SIT). In our previous study, the SCOTS was appropriate for a self-administered threshold test based on its validity and test–retest reliability [16]. The SCOTS has several benefits. It can provide exact control of the stimulus duration and inter-stimulus intervals [17]. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical applicability of the cB-SIT.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Population

Sixty healthy volunteers with self-reported normal olfactory function, 30 hyposmic patients, and 30 anosmic patients were enrolled from June 2023 to May 2024. The exclusion criteria included any healthy volunteers who had been diagnosed with chronic rhinosinusitis or allergic rhinitis, had had an episode of upper respiratory infection within one week before the test, or who were pregnant or lactating. The hyposmic patient group comprised individuals who complained of olfactory dysfunction and had an olfactory threshold between −1 and −6 using the phenyl ethyl alcohol (PEA) odor detection threshold test. The anosmic patient group consisted of individuals who complained of complete loss of olfactory function and had a PEA threshold of −1.
All enrolled participants received both the B-SIT and SCOTS–based cB-SIT in a random order to measure their odor identification ability. Thirty healthy volunteers took the second B-SIT and cB-SIT at least one week later. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (II) of Taichung Veterans General Hospital (TCVGH IRB No. CE23131B). Written consent was obtained from each patient.

2.2. Phenyl Ethyl Alcohol Odor Detection Threshold Test

In the PEA odor detection threshold test [16,18], a two-alternative forced-choice single-staircase detection threshold procedure is performed. Firstly, two glass sniff bottles are presented to the subject. One contains 20 mL of a given concentration of PEA dissolved in light mineral oil, whereas the other contains the mineral oil alone. These two bottles are opened and placed under the subject’s nose in a random order. The subject indicates which bottle contains the stronger odor. If no difference is perceived, a guess is needed.
The PEA concentrations ranged from 10−1 to 10−9 log v/v in half-log concentration steps. The test begins with the bottle containing PEA odorant at 10−6 log vol/vol. Correct identification of the bottle that contains the PEA odorant at 10−6 log v/v in five successive trials triggers a reversal of the staircase to the next lower concentration, whereas a single incorrect identification triggers the reversal of the staircase to the next higher concentration. In the following, correct identification of the bottle that contains the PEA odorant in two successive trials trigger a reversal of the staircase to the next lower concentration. The test is completed with seven reversals. The geometric mean of the last four reversed points of the seven reversals is used as the threshold estimate.

2.3. Brief Smell Identification Test

The B-SIT (Sensonics, Inc., Haddon Heights, NJ, USA) consists of 12 items (Figure 1). The odorants in these items are cinnamon, turpentine, lemon, smoke, chocolate, rose, paint thinner, banana, pineapple, gasoline, soap, and onion in descending order (Table 1) [19]. They are all chosen from the odorants used in the UPSIT [20]. However, 8 of the 12 sets of descriptors used to identify the smelled odor are different between the B-SIT and UPSIT.
The test booklet used in the B-SIT is similar to that used in the UPSIT. Each of the 12 ‘scratch & sniff’ odorants are embedded in 10 to 50 µm urea-formaldehyde polymer microcapsules fixed in a propriety binder and positioned on brown strips located at the bottom of the pages of each test booklet. The testing procedures of the B-SIT are the same as those used in the UPSIT [21]. When the subject takes the UPSIT, he/she releases each of the 12 odorants by scratching the strip with a pencil tip in a standardized manner. The identity of the released odorant is signified by choosing a name from a set of 4 odor descriptors. The test is scored as the number of odors identified correctly. A response is required for each test item even if no smell is perceived (i.e., the test is forced choice), allowing for the detection of malingering on the basis of improbable responses.

2.4. Computerized Brief Smell Identification Test

A 40CH-RA SCOTS (Sensonics, Inc., Haddon Heights, NJ, USA) was used to perform the cB-SIT (Figure 2). It also consists of 12 items and is a forced-choice odor identification test, as with the B-SIT. However, the scents in these items are cinnamon, rubber tire, lemon, smoke, chocolate, rose, licorice, banana, pineapple, apple, soap, and onion in descending order (Table 1). They are all used in the UPSIT, except apple. However, 8 of the 11 sets of descriptors used to identify the smelled odor are different between the cB-SIT and UPSIT. Among the 12 items in the B-SIT and cB-SIT, 9 tested odorants with their sets of descriptors are the same, but the released odorants are different for the second, seventh, and tenth items (Table 1).
To begin the cB-SIT test, the testing procedures were initiated by opening the Sensonics Olfactometer program. According to the instructions shown on the touch screen, the subject conducted the test at his/her own pace. The subject clicks on the cB-SIT button on the main screen of the computer. Then, the subject is prompted to click another button to begin the test. Once the test begins, a scent is released. The subject selects an answer from a set of 4 descriptors that he/she believes most closely resembles the scent within 30 s. There is a pause of 7 s before proceeding to the next item. The steps are repeated until all 12 items are completed. Our subjects typically completed the test in less than 5 min.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

Descriptive data are presented as means ± standard deviations. Our data were not normally distributed. The gender ratio and the correct answer rate of each item in the B-SIT and cB-SIT were compared among healthy volunteers, hyposmic patients, and anosmic patients using Pearson’s chi-squared test. The age and the scores of the B-SIT and cB-SIT of these 3 groups of subjects were compared using the Kruskal–Wallis test. The correct answer rate of each item was compared between the B-SIT and cB-SIT using the McNemar test. The scores of the B-SIT and cB-SIT were compared between the first and second tests in 30 healthy volunteers using the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test. All computations were performed with SPSS (version 22.0, SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Two-tailed p-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

3. Results

3.1. Patients

There were 19 males and 43 females in the group of healthy volunteers, 12 males and 18 females in the hyposmic group, and 16 males and 14 females in the anosmic group. The gender ratio was not significantly different among the three groups (p = 0.066). The ages ranged from 22 to 80 years old, with a mean of 43.1 ± 17.3 years, in the group of healthy volunteers, from 18 to 68 years old, with a mean of 45.2 ± 13.5 years, in the hyposmic group, and from 22 to 71 years old, with a mean of 50.5 ± 12.7 years, in the anosmic group. The ages of the subjects were not significantly different among the three groups (p = 0.063).

3.2. Test–Retest Reliability

Table 1 shows a comparison of the score and correct answer rate of each item of the B-SIT and cB-SIT between the first test and second test among 30 healthy volunteers. The score of the B-SIT was significantly higher in the second test than in the first test, but the score of the cB-SIT was not significantly different between the first and second tests. In the B-SIT, the correct answer rate of the lemon odorant was significantly higher in the second test than in the first test, but in the cB-SIT, the correct answer rates of all 12 odorants were not significantly different between the first and second tests.

3.3. Healthy Group

Table 2 shows the score and correct answer rate of each item of the B-SIT and cB-SIT in the group of healthy volunteers. The correct answer rate of each item was the number of healthy volunteers who correctly identified the odorant of that item divided by the 60 healthy volunteers. The score ranged from 7 to 12 with a mean of 9.3 ± 1.5 in the B-SIT and from 4 to 12 with a mean of 8.6 ± 1.7 in the cB-SIT.
The score of the B-SIT was significantly higher than that of the cB-SIT among 60 healthy volunteers. In the B-SIT, more than 90% of the subjects correctly identified six odorants: turpentine, chocolate, paint thinner, pineapple, soap, and onion. However, only about half of the subjects correctly identified four odorants: lemon, smoke, rose, and banana. Furthermore, in the cB-SIT, more than 90% of subjects correctly identified four odorants: licorice, pineapple, soap, and onion. However, fewer than half of the subjects correctly identified three odorants: lemon, chocolate, and banana. A comparison of the correct answer rate between the B-SIT and cB-SIT revealed that significantly more subjects correctly identified the chocolate and banana odorants in the B-SIT than in the cB-SIT, but significantly more subjects correctly identified the smoke and rose odorants in the cB-SIT than in the B-SIT. Among the three odorants that were different between the B-SIT and cB-SIT, the correct answer rate was not significantly different between turpentine in the B-SIT and rubber tire in the cB-SIT and between paint thinner in the B-SIT and licorice in the cB-SIT. However, significantly more subjects correctly identified the gasoline odorant in the B-SIT than the apple odorant in the cB-SIT.

3.4. Hyposmic Patients

Table 2 shows the score and correct answer rate of each item of the B-SIT and cB-SIT in the hyposmic group of patients. The correct answer rate of each item was the number of hyposmic patients who correctly identified the odorant of that item divided by the 30 hyposmic patients. The score ranged from 1 to 11 with a mean of 6.5 ± 2.5 in the B-SIT and from 2 to 9 with a mean of 5.6 ± 1.9 in the cB-SIT.
The score of the B-SIT was significantly higher than that of the cB-SIT among the 30 hyposmic patients. A comparison of the correct answer rate between the B-SIT and cB-SIT revealed that significantly more subjects correctly identified the chocolate odorant in the B-SIT than in the cB-SIT. Among the three odorants that were different between the B-SIT and cB-SIT, the correct answer rate was not significantly different between turpentine in the B-SIT and rubber tire in the cB-SIT and between gasoline in the B-SIT and apple in the cB-SIT. However, significantly more subjects correctly identified the paint thinner odorant in the B-SIT than the licorice odorant in the cB-SIT.

3.5. Anosmic Patients

Table 2 shows the score and correct answer rate of each item of the B-SIT and cB-SIT in the group of anosmic patients. The correct answer rate of each item was the number of anosmic patients who correctly identified the odorant of that item divided by the 30 anosmic patients. The score ranged from 1 to 9 with a mean of 4.3 ± 2.3 in the B-SIT and from 1 to 6 with a mean of 4.5 ± 1.4 in the cB-SIT.
The score was not significantly different between the B-SIT and cB-SIT among the 30 anosmic patients. A comparison of the correct answer rate between the B-SIT and cB-SIT revealed that there were no significant differences in all 12 items, including the three odorants that were different between the B-SIT and cB-SIT.

3.6. Comparison among Healthy Volunteers, Hyposmic Patients, and Anosmic Patients

Table 2 shows the comparison of the score and correct answer rate of each item of the B-SIT and cB-SIT among healthy volunteers, hyposmic patients, and anosmic patients.
The score was significantly different in either the B-SIT or cB-SIT among the three groups. The post hoc test showed significant differences in scores between healthy volunteers and hyposmic patients (p < 0.001), between healthy volunteers and anosmic patients (p < 0.001), and between hyposmic and anosmic patients (p = 0.045) in the B-SIT. On the other hand, in the cB-SIT, the post hoc test showed significant differences in scores between healthy volunteers and hyposmic patients (p < 0.001) and between healthy volunteers and anosmic patients (p < 0.001) but not between hyposmic and anosmic patients (p = 0.290).
The correct answer rate was significantly different in 10 items of the B-SIT among the three groups except lemon and banana. The post hoc test showed significant differences in the correct answer rates of seven items between healthy volunteers and hyposmic patients, including cinnamon (p < 0.001), turpentine (p < 0.001), paint thinner (p = 0.014), pineapple (p < 0.001), gasoline (p = 0.020), soap (p < 0.001), and onion (p = 0.008). The post hoc test showed significant differences in the correct answer rates of 10 items between healthy volunteers and anosmic patients, including cinnamon (p < 0.001), turpentine (p < 0.001), smoke (p = 0.002), chocolate (p < 0.001), rose (p = 0.006), paint thinner (p < 0.001), pineapple (p < 0.001), gasoline (p = 0.002), soap (p < 0.001), and onion (p < 0.001). The post hoc test showed significant differences in the correct answer rates of two items between hyposmic and anosmic patients, including chocolate (p = 0.011) and paint thinner (p = 0.002).
The correct answer rate was significantly different in seven items of the cB-SIT among the three groups except rubber tire, lemon, chocolate, banana, and apple. The post hoc test showed significant differences in the correct answer rates of seven items between healthy volunteers and hyposmic patients, including cinnamon (p < 0.001), smoke (p < 0.001), rose (p < 0.001), licorice (p < 0.001), pineapple (p < 0.001), soap (p = 0.026), and onion (p = 0.041). The post hoc test showed significant differences in the correct answer rates of seven items between healthy volunteers and anosmic patients, including cinnamon (p < 0.001), smoke (p < 0.001), rose (p < 0.001), licorice (p < 0.001), pineapple (p < 0.001), soap (p < 0.001), and onion (p < 0.001). The post hoc test showed a significant difference in the correct answer rate for onion (p = 0.003) between hyposmic and anosmic patients.

4. Discussion

The B-SIT is a commercially available smell identification test. Its norms have been established and its results are comparable with those of other olfactory tests [22]. Therefore, in this study we compared the olfactory performance of the cB-SIT with that of the B-SIT. Both tests use 12 odorants to measure smell identification ability, although the cB-SIT has 3 odorants that are different from those used in the B-SIT. The testing procedures are similar between the B-SIT and cB-SIT. They differ only in the manner of odorant presentation.
The score of the B-SIT was significantly higher than that of the cB-SIT in the healthy and hyposmic groups. They had more subjects who correctly identified chocolate and banana odorants in the B-SIT than the same odorants in the cB-SIT. One possible reason for this might be that no time limit was set for subjects to smell the released odorants in the B-SIT [23]. The time limit was set at 30 s for the cB-SIT in this study. In addition, a higher number of subjects correctly identified smoke and rose odorants in the cB-SIT than in the B-SIT. Among the three odorants that are different between the B-SIT and cB-SIT, the correct answer rate was not significantly different between turpentine in the B-SIT and rubber tire in cB-SIT and between paint thinner in the B-SIT and licorice in the cB-SIT. However, significantly more subjects correctly identified the gasoline odorant in the B-SIT than the apple odorant in the cB-SIT.
The B-SIT has been shown to be a valid test for assessing olfactory function in many disorders, including Parkinson’s disease and COVID-19-related olfactory dysfunction [24,25,26]. In this study, the score was significantly different in both the B-SIT and cB-SIT among the three groups, although the post hoc test did not show a significant difference between the hyposmic and anosmic patients in the cB-SIT. The correct answer rate was significantly different in 10 items of the B-SIT and in 7 items of the cB-SIT among the three groups, but the post hoc test showed significant differences in the correct answer rates between healthy volunteers and hyposmic patients in eight items of the B-SIT and in seven items of the cB-SIT. This indicates that the cB-SIT had a similar ability to that of B-SIT in differentiating subjects with normal olfactory function from patients with olfactory dysfunction.
The test–retest results showed the score of the second test of the B-SIT was significantly higher than that of the first test, but the scores of the two tests of the cB-SIT were not significantly different. In the B-SIT, the lemon odorant had a higher correct answer rate in the second test than the first test, but in the cB-SIT, the correct answer rate was not significantly different between the first and second tests in all 12 items. The results indicate that the cB-SIT had better test–retest reliability than the B-SIT.

5. Conclusions

Our results showed the test score was significantly different in both the B-SIT and cB-SIT among healthy volunteers, hyposmic patients, and anosmic patients. The correct answer rate was significantly different in 10 items of the B-SIT and in 7 items of the cB-SIT among the three groups, but the post hoc test showed significant differences in correct answer rates between healthy volunteers and hyposmic patients in seven items of both the B-SIT and the cB-SIT. The test–retest results showed the score of the second test of the B-SIT was significantly higher than that of the first test, but the scores of the two tests of the cB-SIT were not significantly different. These demonstrate that the cB-SIT is similar to the B-SIT and can be administered in the diagnosis of patients with olfactory dysfunction. It has the advantages of saving time and cost in clinical practice.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.-S.J.; methodology, R.-S.J.; validation, R.-S.J.; formal analysis, Y.-F.C.; investigation, R.-S.J. and Y.-F.C.; resources, R.-S.J.; data curation, Y.-F.C.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.-F.C.; writing—review and editing, R.-S.J.; supervision, R.-S.J.; project administration, R.-S.J.; funding acquisition, R.-S.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Taichung Veterans General Hospital, Grant No. TCVGH-1127003B and TCVGH-1137003B.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Institutional Review Board (II) of Taichung Veterans General Hospital, IRB number CE23131B.

Informed Consent Statement

Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the Biostatistics Task Force, Taichung Veterans General Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan, for assistance with the statistical analysis.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Feng, G.; Zhuang, Y.; Yao, F.; Ye, Y.; Wan, Q.; Zhou, W. Development of the Chinese Smell Identification Test. Chem. Senses 2019, 44, 189–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Hummel, T.; Sekinger, B.; Wolf, S.R.; Pauli, E.; Kobal, G. ‘Sniffin’ sticks’: Olfactory performance assessed by the combined testing of odor identification, odor discrimination and olfactory threshold. Chem. Senses 1997, 22, 39–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Boesveldt, S.; Verbaan, D.; Knol, D.L.; Visser, M.; van Rooden, S.M.; van Hilten, J.J.; Berendse, H.W. A comparative study of odor identification and odor discrimination deficits in Parkinson’s disease. Mov. Disord. 2008, 23, 1984–1990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Jiang, R.S.; Kuo, L.T.; Wu, S.H.; Su, M.C.; Liang, K.L. Validation of the applicability of the traditional Chinese version of the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. Allergy Rhinol. (Provid.) 2014, 5, 28–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Double, K.L.; Rowe, D.B.; Hayes, M.; Chan, D.K.; Blackie, J.; Corbett, A.; Joffe, R.; Fung, V.S.; Morris, J.; Halliday, G.M. Identifying the pattern of olfactory deficits in Parkinson disease using the brief smell identification test. Arch. Neurol. 2003, 60, 545–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Toledano, A.; González, E.; Rodríguez, G.; Galindo, N. The validity of CCCRC test in patients with nasal polyposis. Rhinology 2007, 45, 54–58. [Google Scholar]
  7. Doty, R.L.; Marcus, A.; Lee, W.W. Development of the 12-item Cross-Cultural Smell Identification Test (CC-SIT). Laryngoscope 1996, 106, 353–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Seo, M.Y.; Choi, W.S.; Lee, S.H. Clinical features of olfactory dysfunction in COVID-19 patients. J. Korean Med. Sci. 2021, 36, e161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Wang, S.M.; Kang, D.W.; Um, Y.H.; Kim, S.; Lee, C.U.; Lim, H.K. Olfactory dysfunction is associated with cerebral amyloid deposition and cognitive function in the trajectory of Alzheimer’s disease. Biomolecules 2023, 13, 1336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Menon, C.; Westervelt, H.J.; Jahn, D.R.; Dressel, J.A.; O’Bryant, S.E. Normative performance on the Brief Smell Identification Test (BSIT) in a multi-ethnic bilingual cohort: A Project FRONTIER study. Clin. Neuropsychol. 2013, 27, 946–961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Rebholz, H.; Pfaffeneder-Mantai, F.; Knoll, W.; Hassel, A.W.; Frank, W.; Kleber, C. Olfactory dysfunction in SARS-CoV-2 infection: Focus on odorant specificity and chronic persistence. Am. J. Otolaryngol. 2021, 42, 103014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Dengiz, R.; Haytoğlu, S.; Görgülü, O.; Doğru, M.; Arıkan, O.K. Effect of septorhinoplasty on olfactory function: Assessment using the Brief Smell Identification Test. Turk. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol. 2015, 53, 4–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Kjelvik, G.; Sando, S.B.; Aasly, J.; Engedal, K.A.; White, L.R. Use of the Brief Smell Identification Test for olfactory deficit in a Norwegian population with Alzheimer’s disease. Int. J. Geriatr. Psychiatry 2007, 22, 1020–1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Schriever, V.A.; Körner, J.; Beyer, R.; Viana, S.; Seo, H.S. A computer-controlled olfactometer for a self-administered odor identification test. Eur. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol. 2011, 268, 1293–1297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Mueller, C.A.; Grassinger, E.; Naka, A.; Temmel, A.F.; Hummel, T.; Kobal, G. A self-administered odor identification test procedure using the “Sniffin’ Sticks”. Chem. Senses 2006, 31, 595–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Jiang, R.S.; Liang, K.L. A pilot study of the Self-Administered Computerized Olfactory Testing System. Am. J. Rhinol. Allergy 2015, 29, e55–e58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Doty, R.L.; Kamath, V. The influences of age on olfaction: A review. Front. Psychol. 2014, 5, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Assanasen, P.; Tunsuriyawong, P.; Pholpornphisit, W.; Chatameteekul, M.; Bunnag, C. Smell detection threshold in Thai adults. J. Med. Assoc. Thai. 2009, 92, 813–816. [Google Scholar]
  19. Kandemir, S.; Pamuk, A.E.; Habipoğlu, Y.; Özel, G.; Bayar Muluk, N.; Kılıç, R. Olfactory acuity based on Brief Smell Identification Test (BSIT®) in migraine patients with and without aura: A cross-sectional, controlled study. Auris Nasus Larynx 2022, 49, 613–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. El Rassi, E.; Mace, J.C.; Steele, T.O.; Alt, J.A.; Soler, Z.M.; Fu, R.; Smith, T.L. Sensitivity analysis and diagnostic accuracy of the Brief Smell Identification Test in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. Int. Forum. Allergy Rhinol. 2016, 6, 287–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Haytoğlu, S.; Dengiz, R.; Muluk, N.B.; Kuran, G.; Arikan, O.K. Effects of septoplasty on olfactory function evaluated by the Brief Smell Identification Test: A study of 116 patients. Ear Nose Throat J. 2017, 96, 433–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Aniteli, M.B.; Marson, F.A.L.; Cunha, F.R.; Sakano, E. Correlation and agreement of olfactory perception assessed by the Connecticut Chemosensory Clinical Research Center olfactory test and the Brief-Smell Identification Test. Braz. J. Otorhinolaryngol. 2022, 88, 858–866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Goudsmit, N.; Coleman, E.; Seckinger, R.A.; Wolitzky, R.; Stanford, A.D.; Corcoran, C.; Goetz, R.R. A brief smell identification test discriminates between deficit and non-deficit schizophrenia. Psychiatry Res. 2003, 120, 155–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Young, V.M.; Bernal, R.; Pollet, E.; Serrano-Rubio, L.; Gaona, C.; Himali, J.J.; Seshadri, S.; González, D.A.; Gonzales, M.M. Deep sleep, olfactory loss, and cognition in early-stage Parkinson’s disease: Pilot study results. Gerontol. Geriatr. Med. 2024, 10, 23337214241262925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Liu, H.; Du, W.; Li, S.; Jin, Y.; Chen, H.; Su, W. China’s modified version of Sniffin’ Sticks 12-Identification Test used in Chinese Parkinson’s disease and multiple system patients: Comparison of three olfactory testing methods. Parkinsons. Dis. 2024, 2024, 3561881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Taş, B.M.; Alpaydın, T.; Akçalı, S.; Kaygusuz, S.; Özlük Erol, Ö.; Şencan, Z.; Cömert, E.; Bayar Muluk, N.; Özel, G. Evaluation of clinical features and olfactory functions in COVID-19: A multicentre study. Cureus 2023, 15, e40027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Diagnostics 14 02121 g001
Figure 1. Brief Smell Identification Test.
Figure 1. Brief Smell Identification Test.
Diagnostics 14 02121 g001
Diagnostics 14 02121 g002
Figure 2. Computerized Brief Smell Identification Test.
Figure 2. Computerized Brief Smell Identification Test.
Diagnostics 14 02121 g002
Table 1. Odorants used in Brief Smell Identification Test (B-SIT) and Computerized Brief Identification Test (cB-SIT) and test–retest reliability.
Table 1. Odorants used in Brief Smell Identification Test (B-SIT) and Computerized Brief Identification Test (cB-SIT) and test–retest reliability.
ItemB-SIT ScoreFirst TestSecond Testp-ValuecB-SIT ScoreFirst TestSecond Testp-Value
Score 9.3 ± 1.410.4 ± 1.00.003 9.1 ± 1.39.1 ± 1.50.717
1. Cinnamon 63.3%60.0%1.000 93.3%76.7%0.125
2. Turpentine 90.0%86.7%1.000Rubber tire90.0%86.7%1.000
3. Lemon 46.7%80.0%0.013 50.0%53.3%1.000
4. Smoke 66.7%86.7%0.070 90.0%90.0%1.000
5. Chocolate 93.3%100%0.500 23.3%20.0%1.000
6. Rose 56.7%80.0%0.065 90.0%90.0%1.000
7. Paint thinner 96.7%100%1.000Licorice86.7%86.7%1.000
8. Banana 43.3%63.3%0.109 23.3%33.3%0.375
9. Pineapple 96.7%96.7%1.000 96.7%100%1.000
10. Gasoline 83.3%86.7%1.000Apple70.0%76.7%0.754
11. Soap 90.0%96.7%0.500 96.7%100%1.000
12. Onion 100%100% 96.7%100%1.000
Table 2. Comparison of the score and correct answer rate of each item among the 3 groups and between the Brief Smell Identification Test (B-SIT) and Computerized Brief Identification Test (cB-SIT).
Table 2. Comparison of the score and correct answer rate of each item among the 3 groups and between the Brief Smell Identification Test (B-SIT) and Computerized Brief Identification Test (cB-SIT).
ItemScore TypeHealthy VolunteersHyposmic PatientsAnosmic Patientsp
ScoreB-SIT9.3 ± 1.56.5 ± 2.54.3 ± 2.3<0.001 a
cB-SIT8.6 ± 1.75.6 ± 1.94.5 ± 1.4<0.001 a
p0.008 b0.04 b0.435
CinnamonB-SIT71.7%23.3%10.0%<0.001 a
cB-SIT80.5%33.3%23.3%<0.001 a
p0.0770.5080.289
TurpentineB-SIT93.3%56.7%43.3%<0.001 a
Rubber tirecB-SIT83.3%63.3%66.7%0.069
p0.1800.7740.167
LemonB-SIT51.7%40.0%33.3%0.222
cB-SIT45.0%26.7%23.3%0.069
p0.5230.3440.549
SmokeB-SIT55.0%33.3%16.7%0.002 a
cB-SIT85.0%36.7%33.3%<0.001 a
p<0.001 a1.0000.227
ChocolateB-SIT90.0%80.0%43.3%<0.001 a
cB-SIT20.0%40.0%36.7%0.084
p<0.001 a0.004 a0.804
RoseB-SIT58.3%33.3%23.3%0.003 a
cB-SIT85.0%30.0%16.7%<0.001 a
p<0.001 a1.0000.727
Paint thinnerB-SIT95.0%76.7%33.3%<0.001 a
LicoricecB-SIT91.7%50.0%43.3%<0.001 a
p0.7270.039 b0.607
BananaB-SIT50.0%53.3%33.3%0.229
cB-SIT20.0%30.0%13.3%0.276
p0.001 a0.1180.070
PineappleB-SIT91.7%53.3%40.0%<0.001 a
cB-SIT90.0%43.3%40.0%<0.001 a
p1.0000.5811.000
GasolineB-SIT80.0%53.3%43.3%0.001 a
ApplecB-SIT58.3%46.7%56.7%0.564
p0.015 b0.8150.388
SoapB-SIT95.0%63.3%53.3%<0.001 a
cB-SIT93.3%73.3%50.0%<0.001 a
p1.0000.5811.000
OnionB-SIT98.3%80.0%53.3%<0.001 a
cB-SIT98.3%86.7%46.7%<0.001 a
p1.0000.6250.727
a: p < 0.005; b: p < 0.05.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jiang, R.-S.; Chiang, Y.-F. A Pilot Study of the Computerized Brief Smell Identification Test. Diagnostics 2024, 14, 2121. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14192121

AMA Style

Jiang R-S, Chiang Y-F. A Pilot Study of the Computerized Brief Smell Identification Test. Diagnostics. 2024; 14(19):2121. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14192121

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jiang, Rong-San, and Yi-Fang Chiang. 2024. "A Pilot Study of the Computerized Brief Smell Identification Test" Diagnostics 14, no. 19: 2121. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14192121

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop