Objective sensory testing methods reveal a higher prevalence of olfactory loss in COVID-19–positive patients compared to subjective methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis
View ORCID ProfileMackenzie E. Hannum, Vicente A. Ramirez, Sarah J. Lipson, Riley D. Herriman, Aurora K. Toskala, View ORCID ProfileCailu Lin, View ORCID ProfilePaule V. Joseph, View ORCID ProfileDanielle R. Reed
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.04.20145870
Mackenzie E. Hannum
1Monell Chemical Senses Center, 3500 Market St, Philadelphia PA 19104
Vicente A. Ramirez
1Monell Chemical Senses Center, 3500 Market St, Philadelphia PA 19104
Sarah J. Lipson
1Monell Chemical Senses Center, 3500 Market St, Philadelphia PA 19104
Riley D. Herriman
1Monell Chemical Senses Center, 3500 Market St, Philadelphia PA 19104
Aurora K. Toskala
1Monell Chemical Senses Center, 3500 Market St, Philadelphia PA 19104
Cailu Lin
1Monell Chemical Senses Center, 3500 Market St, Philadelphia PA 19104
Paule V. Joseph
2Division of Intramural Research, National Institute of Nursing Research, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
3Division of Intramural Research, National Institute of Nursing Research & National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
Danielle R. Reed
1Monell Chemical Senses Center, 3500 Market St, Philadelphia PA 19104
![Loading Loading](https://www.medrxiv.org/sites/all/modules/contrib/panels_ajax_tab/images/loading.gif)
Data Availability
All code and data are available on Github
Posted July 06, 2020.
Objective sensory testing methods reveal a higher prevalence of olfactory loss in COVID-19–positive patients compared to subjective methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Mackenzie E. Hannum, Vicente A. Ramirez, Sarah J. Lipson, Riley D. Herriman, Aurora K. Toskala, Cailu Lin, Paule V. Joseph, Danielle R. Reed
medRxiv 2020.07.04.20145870; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.04.20145870
Objective sensory testing methods reveal a higher prevalence of olfactory loss in COVID-19–positive patients compared to subjective methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Mackenzie E. Hannum, Vicente A. Ramirez, Sarah J. Lipson, Riley D. Herriman, Aurora K. Toskala, Cailu Lin, Paule V. Joseph, Danielle R. Reed
medRxiv 2020.07.04.20145870; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.04.20145870
Subject Area
Subject Areas
- Addiction Medicine (343)
- Allergy and Immunology (666)
- Anesthesia (180)
- Cardiovascular Medicine (2630)
- Dermatology (222)
- Emergency Medicine (397)
- Epidemiology (12183)
- Forensic Medicine (10)
- Gastroenterology (756)
- Genetic and Genomic Medicine (4071)
- Geriatric Medicine (387)
- Health Economics (679)
- Health Informatics (2628)
- Health Policy (998)
- Hematology (362)
- HIV/AIDS (845)
- Medical Education (399)
- Medical Ethics (109)
- Nephrology (431)
- Neurology (3840)
- Nursing (209)
- Nutrition (571)
- Oncology (2011)
- Ophthalmology (582)
- Orthopedics (239)
- Otolaryngology (304)
- Pain Medicine (250)
- Palliative Medicine (74)
- Pathology (471)
- Pediatrics (1109)
- Primary Care Research (449)
- Public and Global Health (6504)
- Radiology and Imaging (1390)
- Respiratory Medicine (869)
- Rheumatology (401)
- Sports Medicine (341)
- Surgery (441)
- Toxicology (52)
- Transplantation (185)
- Urology (165)