Journals / Bezmiâlem Science / 2015 / Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 3

Türk Toplumunda Koku Eşiklerinin ve Koku Ayırt Etme Skorlarının Değerlendirilmesi

Evaluations of Smell Threshold Levels and Smell Identification Scores in Turkish Population

Pages
54–60
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)

Our smell test is easy to apply, inexpensive and suitable for Turkish population in terms of odour familiarity.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: Evaluation of Turkish smell threshold levels and smell identification scores.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: One hundred and eighty-four healthy subjects, 95 men (51.63%) and 89 (48.37%) women were recruited.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Our smell test is easy to apply, inexpensive and suitable for Turkish population in terms of odour familiarity.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: Evaluation of Turkish smell threshold levels and smell identification scores. Methods: One hundred and eighty-four healthy subjects, 95 men (51.63%) and 89 (48.37%) women were recruited. Smoking history was positive for 57 (30.97%) of the subjects. Head trauma, chronic rhinosinusitis, nasal polyposis, congenital smelling deficiency, psychiatric and neurological disorders such as Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s Disease and Multiple Sclerosis were criterias of exclusion. Subjects were given a multiple -choice question for each individual smell and smell identification score was evaluated based on a total of 40 different smells. Smell threshold levels were evaluated with n-butanol test. Results: Mean butanol threshold level was 6.27±0.91 (mean±SD) (range 3-7). Mean smell identification score was 32.57±2.89 (mean±SD) (range 23-40). Mean smell identification score of women was significantly higher compared to men (p<0.001). Butanol threshold level scores and smell identification scores were cross-correlated (p<0.001). Decrease in butanol smell threshold scores were accompanied by decrease in smell identification scores. Smokers scored significantly lower in both butanol threashold and smell identification tests (p<0.001). Conclusion: This emphasizes suggests the importance of olfactory screening test utilization for assessment of olfactory dysfunction in clinical practice. Our smell test is easy to apply, inexpensive and suitable for Turkish population in terms of odour familiarity.

Özet

Amaç: Türk toplumunda farklı kokuların ayır tetme skorlarının saptanması. Yöntemler: Doksanbeşi erkek (%51,63), 89u (%48,37) kadın, yaş- ları 18-65 arasında değişen sağlıklı 184 gönüllü birey çalışmaya alındı. Gönüllülerin 57si (%30,97) sigara kullanıyordu. Kafa travması, kronik rinosinüzit, alerjik rinit, nazal polipozis, psikiyatrik bozukluk (psikozlar), nörolojik hastalıklar (Parkinson, Alzheimer hastalığı, Multiple Skleroz), doğumsal koku alma bozukluğu olan hastalar çalışmadan çıkarıldı. Koku tanımlama skalası total 40 farklı koku baz alınarak değerlendirildi ve hastalara çoklu test soruları herbir koku için soruldu Koku eşikleri ise n- butanol testi yapılarak değerlendirildi. Bulgular: Gönüllülerde elde edilen butanol eşik değerleri en az 3, en fazla ise 7 olarak saptandı (ort. 6,27±0,91). Koku ayırt etme skorları en az 23, en çok ise 40 idi (ort. 32,57±2,89). Koku ayırt etme skor ortalaması kadınlarda erkeklerden daha yüksekti ve aralarındaki fark istatistiksel olarak anlamlı idi (p<0,001). Butanol eşik değerleri ve koku ayırt etme skorlarında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir çapraz korelasyon olduğu görüldü (p<0,001). Butanol eşik değerlerinde düş- me olduğunda koku ayırt etme skorlarında da belirgin bir düşme görülüyordu. Sigara kullanan hastalarda hem butanol eşik testleri hem de koku ayırtetme skorları istatistiksel olarak anlamlı derecede daha düşük saptandı (p<0,001). Sonuç: Klinik pratikte olfaktör disfonksiyonu olan bu hastalarda bu testin kullanılmasının faydalı olacağını düşünüyoruz. Bizim kullandığımız koku testi kolay uygulanabilir, ucuz, Türk toplumunun kültürel yapısına uygun aşina olduğu kokulardan oluşan testtir.

🔖

Cite This Article

YILDIRIM, Y., VEYSELLER, B., YENİGÜN, A., AKSOY, M. F., ÖZTURAN, O. (2015). Türk Toplumunda Koku Eşiklerinin ve Koku Ayırt Etme Skorlarının Değerlendirilmesi. Bezmiâlem Science, Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 3, 54–60. https://ajindex.com/articles/352577

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Chilfala WM, Polzella DJ. Smell and taste classification of the smell stimuli. J Gen Pscholl 1995
  2. [CrossRef] 2. Sakai N, Kobayakawa T, Gotow N, Saito S, Imada S. Enhancement of sweetness ratings of aspartame by a vanilla odor presented either by orthonasal or retronasal routes. Percept Mot Skills 2001
  3. [CrossRef] 3. Kern RC. Chronic sinusitis and anosmia: pathologic changes in the olfactory mucosa Laryngoscope 2000
  4. [CrossRef] 4. 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
  5. [CrossRef] 5. Hawkes C. Olfaction in neurodegenerative disorder. Mov Disord 2003
  6. [CrossRef] 6. Klimek L, Moll B, Amedee RG, Mann WJ. Olfactory function after microscopic endonasal surgery in patients with nasal polyps. Am J Rhinol 1997
  7. [CrossRef] 7. Elsberg CA, Levy I. The sense of smell: I. a new and simple method of quantitative olfactometry. Bull Neurol Inst N Y 1935
  8. Cain WS, Gent JF, Goodspeed RB, Leonard G. Evaluation of olfactory dysfunction in the Connecticut Chemosensory Clinical Research Center. Laryngoscope 1988
  9. [CrossRef] 9. Doty RL, Shaman P, Dann MS. Development of the university of Pennsylvania smell identification test: a standardized microencapsulated test of olfactory function. Physiol Behav 1984
  10. [CrossRef] 10. Kobal G, Hummel T, Sekinger B, Barz S, Roscher S, Wolf S. “Sniffin’ Sticks”: screening of olfactory performance. Rhinology 1996
  11. Takagi SF. A standardized olfactometer in Japan. A review over ten years. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1987
  12. [CrossRef] 12. Wolfensberger M, Schnieper I, Welge-Lusen A. Sniffin’Sticks: a new olfactory test batery. Acta Otolaryngol 2000
  13. [CrossRef] 13. 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
  14. [CrossRef] 14. Kobayashi M, Reiter ER, DiNardo LJ, Costanzo RM. A new clinical olfactory function test: cross-cultural influence. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007
  15. [CrossRef] 15. Nordin S, Brämerson A, Lidén E, Bende M. The Scandinavian OdorIdentification Test: development, reliability, validity and normative data. Acta Otolaryngol 1998
  16. [CrossRef] 16. Hummel T, Sekinger B, Wolf SR, Pauli E