Journals / Kulak Burun Boğaz İhtisas Dergisi / 2012 / Cilt: 22 - Sayı: 2

Pensilvanya Üniversitesi koku belirleme testi: Türk toplumu üzerinde uygulama

University of Pennsylvania smell identification test: Application to Turkish population

Pages
77–80
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: We concluded that UPSIT test is insufficient for the evaluation of olfactory function in Turkish population.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate whether UPSIT (The University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test) clinical olfactory function test is suitable to assess olfactory function in Turkish population.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Patients and Methods: Fifty healthy Turkish volunteers (21 males, 29 females; mean age 31.5±8.7 years; range 20 to 49 years) who underwent a detailed otorhinolaryngological examination were included in the study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: We concluded that UPSIT test is insufficient for the evaluation of olfactory function in Turkish population.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Koku · Koklama bozuklukları · Smell

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate whether UPSIT (The University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test) clinical olfactory function test is suitable to assess olfactory function in Turkish population. Patients and Methods: Fifty healthy Turkish volunteers (21 males, 29 females; mean age 31.5±8.7 years; range 20 to 49 years) who underwent a detailed otorhinolaryngological examination were included in the study. Subjects with abnormal findings suggesting olfactory dysfunction were excluded from the study. UPSIT and Connecticut Chemosensory Clinical Research Center (CCCRC) tests were carried out for each individual separately. Results: Mean CCCRC test score was 6.3±0.6 out of 7. Ten volunteers scored between 5-5.75 were considered mild hyposmia, while 40 volunteers scored between 6-7 were evaluated as normosmic. Volunteers correctly identified 21.4±4.7 odors out of 40 odors in UPSIT test. Conclusion: We concluded that UPSIT test is insufficient for the evaluation of olfactory function in Turkish population. Our results suggest that UPSIT test contains odors which are unfamiliar to Turkish population. Therefore, it is essential to either modify odors of UPSIT test or establish normative data suitable to Turkish population for evaluating the scores to avoid false olfactory function assessment.

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışmada, Pensilvanya Üniversitesi Koku Belirleme Testi (UPSIT) klinik olfaktör fonksiyon testinin, Türk toplumunda olfaktör fonksiyonunu değerlendirmede kullanışlı olup olmadığı araştırıldı. Hastalar ve Yöntemler: Çalışmaya kapsamlı otorinolarengolojik muayene yapılan 50 sağlıklı gönüllü (21 erkek, 29 kadın; ort. yaş 31.5±8.7 yıl; dağılım 20-49 yıl) dahil edildi. Olfaktör fonksiyon bozukluğunu işaret eden anormal bulgulara sahip kişiler çalışmadan dışlandı. Katılımcılar, UPSIT ve Connecticut Kemoduyusal Klinik Araştırma Merkezi (CCRC) testleri ile ayrı ayrı değerlendirildi. Bulgular: Ortalama CCCR test skoru, 7 üzerinden 6.3±0.6 idi. Skoru 5-5.75 arasında olan 10 gönüllü hafif hipozmik olarak değerlendirilirken, skoru 6-7 arasında olan 40 gönüllü normozmik olarak değerlendirildi. Gönüllüler UPSIT testinde kullanılan 40 kokudan 21.4±4.7’sini doğru tanımladı. Sonuç: UPSIT testinin Türk toplumunda olfaktör fonksiyonun değerlendirilmesinde yetersiz olduğu sonucuna varıldı. Çalışma sonuçları, UPSIT testinde Türk toplumunun aşina olmadığı kokular olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu nedenle, hatalı olfaktör fonksiyon değerlendirmesinden kaçınmak için skorların değerlendirilmesinde UPSIT testinde yer alan kokuların değiştirilmesi veya Türk toplumuna uygun normatif verilerin oluşturulması gerekmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

YÜCEPUR, C., ÖZÜCER, B., DEĞİRMENCİ, N., YILDIRIM, Y., VEYSELLER, B., ÖZTURAN, O. (2012). Pensilvanya Üniversitesi koku belirleme testi: Türk toplumu üzerinde uygulama. Kulak Burun Boğaz İhtisas Dergisi, Cilt: 22 - Sayı: 2, 77–80. https://ajindex.com/articles/343061

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Doty RL, Shaman P, Kimmelman CP, Dann MS. University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test: a rapid quantitative olfactory function test for the clinic. Laryngoscope 1984;94:176-8
  2. Doty RL. Olfactory dysfunction and its measurement in the clinic and workplace. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2006;79:268-82
  3. Kobayashi M, Reiter ER, DiNardo LJ, Costanzo RM. A new clinical olfactory function test: cross-cultural influence. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007;133:331-6
  4. Nordin S, Brâmerson A, Liden E, Bende M. The Scandinavian Odor-Identification Test: development, reliability, validity and normative data. Acta Otolaryngol 1998;118:226-34
  5. Hummel T, Sekinger B, Wolf SR, 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
  6. Cain WS, Gent JF, Goodspeed RB, Leonard G. Evaluation of olfactory dysfunction in the Connecticut Chemosensory Clinical Research Center. Laryngoscope 1988;98:83-8
  7. Kern RC. Chronic sinusitis and anosmia: pathologic changes in the olfactory mucosa. Laryngoscope 2000;110:1071-7
  8. Callahan CD, Hinkebein JH. Assessment of anosmia after traumatic brain injury: performance characteristics of the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test. J Head Trauma Rehabil 2002;17:251-6
  9. Hawkes C. Olfaction in neurodegenerative disorder. Mov Disord 2003;18:364-72
  10. Klimek L, Moll B, Amedee RG, Mann WJ. Olfactory function after microscopic endonasal surgery in patients with nasal polyps. Am J Rhinol 1997;11:251-5
  11. Doty RL, Shaman P, Dann M. Development of the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test: a standardized microencapsulated test of olfactory function. Physiol Behav 1984;32:489-502
  12. Silveira-Moriyama L, Azevedo AM, Ranvaud R, Barbosa ER, Doty RL, Lees AJ. Applying a new version of the Brazilian-Portuguese UPSIT smell test in Brazil. Arq Neuropsiquiatr 2010;68:700-5
  13. Jiang RS, Su MC, Liang KL, Shiao JY, Wu SH, Hsin CH. A pilot study of a traditional Chinese version of the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test for application in Taiwan. Am J Rhinol Allergy 2010;24:45-50
  14. Mackay-Sim A, Grant L, Owen C, Chant D, Silburn P. Australian norms for a quantitative olfactory function test. J Clin Neurosci 2004;11:874-9
  15. Parola S, Liberini P. Assessing olfaction in the Italian population: methodology and clinical application. Ital J Neurol Sci 19