The Development and Validation of the Smell‐Qx Questionnaire, Based on a Systematic Review of the Literature and the COMET Initiative on the Development of Core Outcome Sets for Clinical Trials in Olfactory Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Olfactory dysfunction affects up to 22% of the population. Accurate assessment is vital for diagnosis and tracking outcomes, often using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). AIMS: We aimed to develop and validate a novel questionnaire for assessing olfactory and gustatory dysfunction. METHODS: A systematic review identified existing smell and taste questionnaires, followed by item generation and selection. After two Delphi cycles and consultation with a large panel of smell and taste experts, the Smell-Qx questionnaire was developed. A validation study recruited patients from smell and taste clinics (cases) and general ENT clinics (controls) to complete the Smell-Qx. Additionally, patients with smell and taste disorders underwent psychophysical testing using Sniffin' Stick Threshold, Discrimination, and Identification (TDI) tests. RESULTS: The Smell-Qx is an 11-domain instrument, with five core domains used for total score calculation and six history/quality-of-life domains for obtaining a comprehensive history. The validation study recruited 60 participants (32 patients with smell/taste disorders and 28 controls). Items showed acceptable to significant internal consistency (Cronbach's α: 0.64-0.97) and test-retest reliability (ICC: 0.65-0.99, p < 0.001). The Smell-Qx was effective at distinguishing patients with smell and taste disorders from controls (t = 9.99, df = 58, p < 0.0001). Concurrent criterion validity was good with overall SATD-related quality of life (r = 0.43, p = 0.015), as well as with the smell loss domain and overall smell TDI scores (r = -0.54, p = 0.011). CONCLUSION: The Smell-Qx is a reliable and valid PROM for assessing olfactory and self-reported gustatory disorders, capturing symptom severity and quality-of-life impact. It can integrate into a multi-modal assessment approach alongside psychophysical testing.
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 | 0.173 | 0.174 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".