Search results
The systematic search resulted in 160 potentially relevant articles. They were obtained from four e-databases including PubMed (65), EMBASE (41), Scopus (43), and WoS (11). After leaving out 84 duplicated studies, the titles and abstracts of the rest were examined, if needed their full texts were also checked. Hence, during the screening process, 56 studies did not meet the eligibility criteria and one study was excluded due to inaccessibility to the full text. Afterward, the reference list of related studies was examined for finding the other studies. Finally, 28 articles were included in qualitative review; then in quantitative review six studies were excluded due to reporting the olfactory and gustatory dysfunction in COVID-19 patients with sudden loss of smell (SLS) (5 studies) or individuals with olfactory and gustatory dysfunction without known COVID-19 status. The searching and selecting process is shown in the PRISMA diagram, Figure 1. Characteristics of the 28 selected studies including study characteristics, outcome characteristics, findings, and quality score are shown in Table 2.
Quality assessment
The included studies consist of a variety of study designs - cross-sectional (n = 22) (12, 16-19, 25-41); case-control (n = 3) (42-44); case-report and case series (n = 3) studies (45-47). Two categories of the MMAT were employed based on the study design to examine the methodological quality of these studies; quantitative non-randomized category for cross-sectional and case-control studies and quantitative descriptive category for case-report and case series ones. Of the 28 included studies, one (44) had a MMAT score of 100%, six (19, 26, 27, 38, 42, 43) scored 80%, three (45-47) scored 40% and the rest (12, 16-18, 25, 28-37, 39-41) had a MMAT score of 60%, Table 2. The most frequent shortcomings in the quality assessment were an inappropriate or not-reported method for measuring exposures and controlling confounders (Appendix 1 - Table 1 & 2).
Qualitative synthesis
The characteristics of the eligible studies are summarized in Table 2. All 28 included studies in this review were investigated the olfactory and gustatory dysfunction during the COVID-19 outbreak, from January till April 2020. Most of these studies (about 61%, 17/28) (12, 16, 18, 26, 27, 30, 33-38, 42, 43, 45, 47) were carried out in the European countries including Italy (5), Germany (3), UK (2), Belgium (1), France (1), Spain (1), the Netherlands (1), and three joint studies; and also in several Asian countries (about 25%, 7/28) (17, 28, 32, 39, 41, 44, 46) including Iran (3), Singapore (1), China (1), South Korea (1), and Israel (1); and in the USA (about 11%, 3/28) (19, 29, 40); and one study (31) was conducted in European and American countries jointly.
Olfactory and gustatory dysfunction measurement
Olfactory and gustatory dysfunction was measured using different methods. The most common method was the self-report. Self- report could be done through different ways: an online questionnaire (12, 19, 27, 30, 34, 37), non-online questionnaire (18, 32, 35, 39, 43, 44), online checklist (17), the COVID RADAR Symptom Tracker app (16), visual analogue scale (VAS) (25), archived medical records (40, 41), or verbally (45, 46). Four studies (28, 29, 31, 33) did not report how to measure, just extracted from medical records. In three studies (26, 27, 42), the Sniffin' Sticks screening test for smelling disorders was used to perform psychophysical olfactory evaluation. The other methods contain: The SNOT-22 test to grade symptom severity (27, 36), the CCCRC test to assess Olfactory function (38), and the supra-threshold six odors smell test (47).
Epidemiological characteristics of included studies
Of the 28 eligible studies, 22 reported the prevalence of the olfactory and/or gustatory dysfunction in the COVID-19 patients, five studies described the olfactory and/or gustatory dysfunction in the COVID-19 patients with SLS (26, 27, 45-47) and one study ecologically assessed the correlation between the number of subjects with olfactory dysfunction and the number of confirmed COVID-19 patients in all provinces of Iran (17). They were different in design and settings. Majority study design was cross-sectional (about 79%, 22/28) (12, 16-19, 25-41); then case-control (about 11%, 3/25) (42-44) and three case report and case series (about 11%, 3/28) (45-47). The sample size of them except case report and case series, ranged from 16 (29) to 10069 (17).
Regardless of the case report and case series studies: the sample size ranged from 16 (29) to 10069 (17); the prevalence of the olfactory dysfunction reported by 88% (22/25); the taste disorder reported by 60% (15/25); the olfactory and gustatory dysfunction reported by 44% (11/25); olfactory or gustatory dysfunction reported by 8% (2/25). The presented olfactory or gustatory dysfunction prevalence in Italy (36) and Singapore (39) were 64.3% and 22.7% respectively; while the presented olfactory and gustatory dysfunction prevalence ranged from 16.6% to 80.8%.
The highest reported prevalence of olfactory dysfunction in European, Asian countries, and the USA were 85.7% (27), 98% (44), 67.7% (19) respectively; and also the highest occurred prevalence of gustatory dysfunction in European, Asian countries, and the USA were 88.8% (12), 33.7% (32), 71.1% (19) respectively.
Table 2: Characteristics of the included studies
ID
|
Study characteristics
|
Outcome characteristics
|
Findings
|
Other main findings
|
QS
(0-100%)
|
Author [ref]
|
Country/ Study time
|
Study type
|
Population/ sample size
|
Reported outcomes
|
Measurements tool (range of score)
|
Prevalence in confirmed cases
|
Any olfactory dysfunction
|
Any gustatory dysfunction
|
Olfactory and/or gustatory dysfunction
|
1
|
Yan et al. (19)
|
USA, California
March 31 - April 3, 2020
|
Cross-sectional
|
Confirmed Covid-19 patients:
59
|
Olfactory impairment
Anosmia
Gustatory impairment
Ageusia
|
Online questionnaire
(0-270)
|
Anosmia:
67.7%
|
Ageusia:
71.1%
|
NR
|
NR
|
80%
|
2
|
Giacomelli et al. (18)
|
Italy, Milan
19 March 2020
|
Cross-sectional
|
Covid-19- Positivehospitalized:
59
|
Olfactory disorder
Hyposmia
Anosmia
Taste disorder
Dysgeusia
Ageusia
Olfactory and Taste disorders (OTDs)
|
Questionnaire
|
Overall:
23.7%
Hyposmia:
11.8%
Anosmia:
11.8%
|
Overall:
28.8%
Dysgeusia:
15.2%
Ageusia:
13.5%
|
Overall:
18.6%
Dysgeusia and hyposmia:
3.4%
Dysgeusia and anosmia:
3.4%
Ageusia and hyposmia:
3.4%
Ageusia and anosmia:
8.5%
|
NR
|
60%
|
3
|
Klopfenstein et al. (33)
|
France
1-17 March, 2020
|
Cross-sectional
|
Covid-19- Positive:
114
|
Anosmia
Dysgeusia
|
Extracted from medical records
|
Anosmia
47.3%
|
NR
|
Anosmia and dysgeusia:
40.3%
|
NR
|
60%
|
4
|
Mao et al. (41)
|
China
January 16 - February 19, 2020
|
Cross-sectional
|
Covid-19- Positive hospitalized:
T: 214
Severe: 88
Nonsevere: 126
|
Taste impairment Smell impairment
|
Extracted from medical records
|
Overall:
5.1%
Severe:
3.4%
Non-severe: 6.3%
|
Overall:
5.6%
Severe: 3.4%
Non-severe: 7.1%
|
NR
|
NR
|
60%
|
5
|
Lechien et al. (12)
|
Some European countries (Belgium, France, Spain, Italy) a
NR
|
Cross-sectional
|
Mild-to-moderate COVID-19 patients:
417
From 12 European hospitals
|
Olfactory dysfunction
Anosmia
Hyposmia
Gustatory dysfunction
Reduced/discontinued taste ability
Distorted taste ability
|
Online questionnaire b
|
Overall:
85.6%
Anosmia:
68.1%
Hyposmia:
17.5%
Phantosmia:
12.6%
Parosmia: 32.4%
|
Overall:
88.8%
Reduced/discontinued taste ability:
70.1%
Distorted taste ability:18.7
|
Overall:
80.8%
Gustatory dysfunction and anosmia:
64.2%
Gustatory dysfunction and hyposmia:
16.5%
|
NR
|
60%
|
6
|
Moein et al. (44)
|
Iran, Tehran
21-23 March, or March 31 - April 5, 2020
|
Case-control
|
Covid-19- Positive:
60
|
Olfactory dysfunction
Anosmia
Hyopsomia
Smell
Gustatory dysfunction
Taste loss
|
Odorant test- UPSIT
(0-40)
Self-report
|
Overall:
98%
Anosmia:
25%
Hyopsomia:
73%
Self-report
Smell loss:
28.3%
|
Self-report Taste loss:
23.3%
|
Self-report Smell and taste loss:
16.6%
|
NR
|
100%
|
7
|
Bénézit et al. (30)
|
France
15–18 March, 2020
|
Cross-sectional
|
Covid-19- Positive:
68
|
Olfactory disorder
Hyposmia
Taste disorder
Hypogeusia
|
Online questionnaire
|
Hyposmia:
45.5%
|
Hypogeusia:
61.7%
|
Hypogeusia and
Hyposmia:
42.6%
|
NR
|
60%
|
8
|
Lechien et al. (34)
|
Some European countries a
March 22 - April 10, 2020
|
Multicenter, Cross-sectional
|
Covid-19- Positive:
1420
From 18 European hospitals
|
Loss of smell
Gustatory dysfunction
|
Online questionnaire b
|
Anosmia:
70.2%
|
Any gustatory dysfunction:
54.2%
|
NR
|
NR
|
60%
|
9
|
Beltran-Corbellini et al. (43)
|
Spain, Madrid
23-25 March, 2020
|
Case-control
|
Covid-19- Positive hospitalized:
79
|
Smell disorder:
Anosmia
Hyposmia
Dysosmia
Taste disorder:
Ageusia
Hypogeusia
Dysgeusia
Capable of distinguish sweetness/saltiness/bitterness
|
Questionnaire
|
Overall:
31.6%
Anosmia:
17.7%
Hyposmia:
11.3%
Dysosmia:
2.5%
|
Overall:
35.4%
Ageusia:
17.7%
Hypogeusia:
8.8%
Dysgeusia:
10.1%
Capable of distinguish sweetness/saltiness/bitterness:
24.0%
|
39.2 %
|
NR
|
80%
|
10
|
Spinato et al. (36)
|
Italy, Treviso and Belluno provinces
19-22 March, 2020
|
Cross-sectional
|
Covid-19- Positive:
202
|
Alteration of sense of smell
or taste
|
SNOT-22:
None (0)
very mild (1)
mild or slight (2)
moderate (3)
Severe (4)
As bad as it can be (5)
|
NR
|
NR
|
Alteration of sense of smell or taste:
64.3%
very mild: 2.4%
mild /slight: 11.3%
moderate: 13.3%
severe: 13.3%
as bad as it can be:
23.7%
|
NR
|
60%
|
11
|
Aggarwal et al. (29)
|
USA
March 1 - April 4, 2020
|
Cross-sectional
|
Covid-19- Positive:
16
|
Loss of smell
Anosmia
Loss of taste
Dysgeusia
|
Extracted from EMR
|
Anosmia:
18.7%
|
Dysgeusia:
18.7%
|
18.7%
|
NR
|
60%
|
12
|
Kaye et al. (31)
|
USA, Mexico, Italy, UK, Other
March 25 - April 3, 2020
|
Cross-sectional
|
Covid-19- patient:
237
|
Anosmia
|
Extracted from the COVID-19 Anosmia Reporting Tool
|
Anosmia:
72.5%
|
|
Alteration of sense of smell or taste:
64.3%
|
NR
|
60%
|
13
|
Vaira et al. (38)
|
Italy
March 31 - April 6, 2020
|
Cross-sectional
|
Covid-19- Positive:
72
|
Olfactory disorder
Hyposmia
Anosmia
Gustatory disorder
Dysgeusia
Ageusia
|
Olfaction test- CCCRC
(0-100)
gustatory test
(0-4)
|
Overall:
83.2%
Anosmia:
2.7%
Hyposmia:
80.5%
|
Overall:
48.6%
Ageusia:
1.3%
Dysgeusia:
47.2%
|
41.7%
|
NR
|
80%
|
14
|
Luers et al. (35)
|
Germany
22-28 March, 2020
|
Cross-sectional
|
Covid-19- Positive:
72
|
Olfactory disorder
Hyposmia
Anosmia
Gustatory disorder
Dysgeusia
Ageusia
|
Questionnaire
|
73.6%
|
69.4%
|
68.0%
|
NR
|
60%
|
15
|
Yan et al. (40)
|
USA, California
March 3 - April 8, 2020
|
Cross-sectional
|
Covid-19- Positive:
128
|
Olfactory impairment
Anosmia/hyposmia
Gustatory impairment
Dysgeusia
|
Extracted from EMR or by email/call
|
58.5%
|
Dysgeusia:
54.6%
|
NR
|
NR
|
60%
|
16
|
Tostmann et al. (37)
|
The Netherlands
10-29 March, 2020
|
Cross-sectional
|
Covid-19- Positive (Healthcare workers):
79
|
Anosmia
|
Online questionnaire
|
Anosmia:
46.8%
|
NR
|
NR
|
NR
|
60%
|
17
|
Wee et al. (39)
|
Singapore
March 26 - April 10, 2020
|
Cross-sectional
|
Covid-19- Positive:
154
|
Olfactory or taste disorders
|
Questionnaire
|
NR
|
NR
|
Olfactory or taste disorders: 22.7%
|
NR
|
60%
|
18
|
Bagheri et al. (17)*
|
Iran,
All provinces
12-17
March, 2020
|
Cross-sectional
|
Volunteer cases with self-reported anosmia/hyposmia in the last month:10069
|
Olfactory dysfunction
Anosmia
Hyposmia
|
Online checklist
|
NR
|
NR
|
NR
|
Strong correlation between the number of olfactory disorder and reported COVID-19 patients in all provinces.
|
60%
|
19
|
Kim et al. (32)*
|
South Korea
|
Cross-sectional
|
Covid-19 Positive:
172
|
Hyposmia
Hypogeusia
|
Questionnaire
|
39.5%
|
33.7%
|
NR
|
NR
|
60%
|
20
|
Menni et al. (16)*
|
UK
24-29
March, 2020
|
Cross-sectional
|
Covid-19- Positive:
579
|
Loss of taste and smell
|
The COVID RADAR Symptom Tracker app d
|
NR
|
NR
|
59.4%
|
NR
|
60%
|
21
|
Lechien et al. (26)*
|
Some European countries a
|
Cross-sectional
|
All cases with SLS:
78
psychophysical olfactory evaluation in SLS patients:
46
|
Dysgeusia:
Smelling dysfunction Anosmia
Hyposmia
|
Sniffin Sticks test
(0-12)
|
Overall:
76%
Anosmia:
52%
Hyposmia:
24%
|
Dysgeusia:
67.9
|
NR
|
NR
|
80%
|
22
|
Hornuss et al. (42)*
|
Germany
April 2020
|
Case-control
|
Hospitalized COVID-19 patients:
45
|
Smelling dysfunction Anosmia
Hyposmia
|
Sniffin Sticks test
(0-12)
|
Overall:
84.4%
Anosmia:
40.0%
Hyposmia:
44.4%
|
NR
|
NR
|
NR
|
80%
|
23
|
Levinson et al. (28)*
|
Israel
10-23 March, 2020
|
Cross-sectional
|
Hospitalized mild COVID-19 patients:
42
|
Anosmia
Dysgeusia
|
Extracted from EMR
|
Anosmia:
35.7%
|
Dysgeusia:
33.3%
|
33.3%
|
NR
|
60%
|
24
|
Haehner et al. (25)*
|
Germany
April 2020
|
Cross-sectional
|
Covid-19 Positive:
34
|
Sudden smell and/or taste loss
|
Questionnaire with visual analogue scale (0-10)
|
61.7%
|
NR
|
NR
|
NR
|
60%
|
25
|
Lechien et al. (27)*
|
Belgium
NR
|
Cross-sectional
|
Patients with SLS and COVID-19 Positive:
28
|
Olfactory dysfunction:
Aroma disorder
Cacosmia
Phantosmia
Anosmia
Hyposmia
Gustatory
Dysfunction:
Dysgeusia
|
Self-report by an online questionnaire b
Sniffin stick test
(0-12)
SNOT-22
|
Overall:
85.7%
Anosmia:
53.6%
Hyposmia:
21.4%
|
Dysgeusia:
60.1%
|
NR
|
NR
|
80%
|
26
|
Gilani et al. (46)
|
Iran
March 11 - April 1, 2020
|
Case series
|
Patients with SLS:
T: 8
COVID-19 Positive:
5
SLS unknown COVID-19:
3
|
Anosmia
Ageusia
|
Self-report
|
NA
|
Ageusia:
2 of unknown COVID-19 patients
|
NR
|
NR
|
40%
|
27
|
Gane et al. (45)
|
UK
NR
|
Case report and
Case series
|
Patients with SLS:
T: 11
COVID-19 Positive:
1
Unknown COVID-19:
10
|
NR
|
Self-report
|
NA
|
NR
|
NR
|
NR
|
40%
|
28
|
Marchese-Ragona et al. (47) *
|
Italy
NR
|
Case series
|
Patients with SLS:
6
SC:
5
|
Hyposmia
Hypogeusia
|
Supra-threshold six odours smell test
|
NA
|
Hypogeusia:
All cases except one SC
|
NR
|
NR
|
40%
|
Abbreviations: QS: Quality score; OTD: Olfactory or taste disorders; T: Total; aOR: Adjusted odds ratio; OR: Odds ratio; NA; Not applicable; NR: Not reported; UPSIT: The University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test; SNOT-22: The Sino-nasal Outcome Test 22; EMR: electronic medical records; CCCRC: Connecticut Chemosensory Clinical Research Center olfactory test; SLS: Sudden loss of smell; SC: Strict contact with lab-positive COVID-19;
*: Not peer-reviewed
a: Carried out by the COVID-19 Task Force of YO-IFOS (the Young-Otolaryngologists of the International Federation of Oto-rhino-laryngological Societies).
b: The questionnaire was created with Professional Survey Monkey.
c: The survey was developed by the AAO-HNS (American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery) Infectious Disease Committee and Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Committee).
d: Developed by Zoe Global Limited and King’s College London.
|
Quantitative synthesis
Results of meta-analysis
The results of meta-analysis of the prevalence of olfactory and gustatory dysfunction according to study design, measurement tool and dysfunction type are shown in Table 3. The total sample size of the included studies in meta-analysis was 4322. The eligible studies for estimation of the prevalence of any olfactory dysfunction, anosmia and hyposmia were 19, 13, and 7, respectively. According to the random effect meta-analysis, the global pooled prevalence (95% CI) of any olfactory dysfunction, anosmia and hyposmia was 55% (40%-70%), 40% (22%-57%) and 40% (20%-61%) respectively. Appendix 2 - Figure 1-3 show the forest plot of eligible studies for the estimation of olfactory dysfunction, anosmia and hyposmia prevalence. Prevalence (95% CI) of olfactory dysfunction in the case control studies (prevalence: 97%; 95 % CI: 94-100) was significantly higher than the cross-sectional studies (prevalence: 51%; 95 % CI: 35-66).
The included studies to estimate the prevalence of any gustatory dysfunction, ageusia and dysgeusia were 14 (n=2878), 7 (n=762), and 7 (n=845) respectively. The pooled estimated prevalence of any gustatory dysfunction, ageusia and dysgeusia was 41% (95 % CI: 23%-59%), 31% (95 % CI: 3%-59%) and 34% (95 % CI: 19%-48%) respectively. Combination of olfactory and/or gustatory dysfunction prevalence was reported in 13 studies (n=1934) demonstrating 42% (95 % CI: 29%-55%) prevalence in patients with COVID-19. Appendix 2 - Figure 4-6 show the forest plot of the prevalence of any gustatory dysfunction, ageusia dysgusia in patients with COVID-19.
Sensitivity analysis
Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the effect of each individual study on pooled prevalence of olfactory and gustatory dysfunction. The results showed that no significant change in the pooled prevalence of olfactory and gustatory dysfunction was found in the included studies (p > 0.05).
Meta-regression
Results of meta-regression analysis demonstrated that effect of quality score, study design and measurement tool on reported prevalence of olfactory and gustatory dysfunction was not statistically significant (p > 0.05).
Table 3: Meta-analysis of the prevalence of olfactory and gustatory impairments according to study design, measurement tool and impairment type
Impairment
|
Study ID
|
Sample size
|
Pooled prevalence
|
Model
|
Heterogeneity assessment
|
% (95% CI)
|
I2 %
|
Q test
|
P-value
|
Olfactory impairment
|
Overall (any impairment)
|
19
|
3387
|
55 (40-70)
|
Random
|
99.25
|
2387
|
<0.001
|
By study design
|
Cross-sectional
|
17
|
3282
|
51 (35-66)
|
Random
|
99.1
|
1768
|
<0.001
|
Case control
|
2
|
105
|
97 (94-100)
|
Fixed
|
----
|
----
|
----
|
By measurement tool
|
Questionnaire
|
10
|
2459
|
55 (43-67)
|
Random
|
97.0
|
306.8
|
<0.001
|
Medical records
|
6
|
751
|
38 (9-68)
|
Random
|
99.0
|
513.1
|
<0.001
|
Olfaction test
|
3
|
177
|
96 (93-98)
|
fixed
|
----
|
----
|
----
|
By type of dysfunction
|
Anosmia
|
13
|
2700
|
40 (22-57)
|
Random
|
98.9
|
1183
|
<0.001
|
Hyposmia
|
7
|
800
|
40 (20-61)
|
Random
|
97.7
|
272
|
0.07
|
Gustatory impairment
|
Overall (any impairment)
|
14
|
2878
|
41 (23-59)
|
Random
|
99.3
|
1983
|
<0.001
|
By study design
|
Cross-sectional
|
13
|
2818
|
42 (24-61)
|
Random
|
99.3
|
1983
|
<0.001
|
Case-control
|
1
|
60
|
23 (14-35)
|
--------
|
-------
|
-------
|
--------
|
By measurement tool
|
Questionnaire
|
8
|
2346
|
48(17-79)
|
Random
|
99.6
|
1824
|
<0.001
|
Medical records
|
4
|
400
|
28(2-57)
|
Random
|
99.6
|
1824
|
<0.001
|
Test
|
2
|
132
|
35 (27-43)
|
fixed
|
----
|
----
|
----
|
By type of dysfunction
|
Ageusia
|
7
|
762
|
31(3-59)
|
Random
|
99.2
|
778
|
<0.001
|
Dysgeusia
|
7
|
845
|
34(19-48)
|
Random
|
95.9
|
145.9
|
<0.001
|
Olfactory and/or gustatory
|
13
|
1934
|
42(29-55)
|
Random
|
97.3
|
453.6
|
<0.001
|