Olfactory dysfunction in patients with Parkinson's disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Parkinson’s disease (PD) is a progressive neuro-degenerative disease and olfactory dysfunction is considered as an important issue in these patients. The prevalence of olfactory dysfunction in patients with PD was reported variously in previous studies. Therefore, we designed this systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the pooled prevalence of olfactory dysfunction in patients with PD. Methods: Two expert researchers systematically searched PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, Web of Science, Google Scholar, references of the papers, and conference abstracts. The titles and abstracts of the potential studies were evaluated after deleting the duplicates. We extracted data regarding the total number of participants, first author, publication year, the country of origin, mean age, mean disease duration, female/male, number with olfactory dysfunction, and name of the test. We evaluated the risk of potential bias by the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (adapted for cross-sectional studies). All statistical analyses were done using Stata software. To determine heterogeneity between the findings of included studies, inconsistency (I2) was calculated. We applied random effect model when I2 was more than 50%. P-value less than 0.05 was considered significant. Results: The literature search revealed 1546 studies; after deleting duplicates, 894 remained. Finally, twelve studies remained for meta-analysis. Studies were published between years of 2009 to 2021, the sample size of studies ranged between 30 and 2097, and the mean age ranged between 61 and 70 years. The pooled prevalence of olfactory dysfunction in patients with PD was estimated as 64% [95% confidence interval (CI): 44-84, I2 = 99.7%, P < 0.001]. The pooled prevalence of olfactory dysfunction using Sniffin's test was 67% (95% CI: 51-83) and using other tests was 60% (95% CI: 28-92). Conclusion: The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis showed that the pooled prevalence of olfactory dysfunction in patients with PD was 64% which should be considered by physicians.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.042 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".