Abstract
Background :Psychophysical tests are typically used for clinical assessment of human smelling function. Given that olfactory identification is linked to the regional culture, the main aim of this study was to provide the comprehensive “sniffin’ sticks” olfactory test, culturally adapted on the Iranian population as well as to examine the discriminatory power of this test between normal people and patients with olfactory disorder.
Methods : This cross-sectional study consisted of 3 steps. A total of 200 healthy people were recruited to determine odor familiarity (using Likert- scale) for the first step. In the second step, based on the original sniffin’ sticks test and odor familiarity, 16 odor items were selected. Odor modification was performed and the identification part of the sniffin’ sticks test was created. Then, 99 patients with olfactory disorders and 214 healthy participants were tested using the Iranian sniffin’ sticks test (Ir-SST). After 2 to 4 weeks, participants were reexamined and test reliability was evaluated by using a Pearson correlation coefficient test.
Results : The Ir-SST showed that scores of patients with smell loss were significantly lower than normosmic participants (13.6 ± 5.24 vs 34.3 ± 3.41, P < 0.001). The sensitivity (95.2%) and specificity (93.5%) of the test were also found to be high. Test-retest reliability was as follows: composite score: r = 0.8; odor identification: r = 0.83; odor threshold: r = 0.77; and odor discrimination test: r = 0.56; P < 0.001.
Conclusion : The results suggest that the Ir-SST can be effectively adapted to the Iranian population. The current study validates that the sniffin' sticks olfactory test is applicable as a useful screening tool for comprehensive assessment of olfactory function in an Iranian population.
Keywords: Olfaction, Sense of Smell, Smell Disorders, Cultural Adaptation, Sniffin’ Sticks Test
↑What is “already known” in this topic
Olfactory tests are most commonly used for assessing olfactory function as a measurement of threshold, discrimination, and identification ability. With the Sniffin' stick test, these 3 components of olfaction could be assessed, whereas the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test is only able to evaluate the identification ability.
→What this article adds
Given that olfactory identification is linked to the regional culture, the main aim of this study was to provide the comprehensive olfactory test culturally adapted on the Iranian population. We aimed to provide a more trustworthy clinical assessment of the olfactory function in people who malinger to lose their sense of smell as well as to distinguish olfaction-related disorders in our community.
Introduction
The smell sense is one of the most important senses in daily life. It is essential for the perception of flavors, social communications (including sexual relations), and the detection of dangers, suc h as fire, smoke, poisonous foods, or gas leaks (1, 2). Several studies have reported that patients with olfactory disorders exhibit a higher level of disability and lower quality of life than those without such impairment. Besides, the prevalence of mild to severe symptoms of depression in these patients is higher than the general population (3- 6). Furthermore, the activation of some part of the olfactory system in the brain of these patients is lower than that of the normosmic people (7, 8).
Approximately 5% of people are unable to smell and nearly 20% of people older than 50 years exhibit a significant smell loss. (9, 10) Apart from aging (11- 13), there are 3 major reasons for olfactory disorders: sino-nasal diseases (eg, nasal polyp), (14, 15) upper respiratory tract infections, (16, 17) and head trauma (18- 20). In addition, the olfactory loss manifests in neurodegenerative disorders like Alzheimer and Parkinson disease (21, 22).
The assessment of olfactory function is crucial for the evaluation and diagnosis of olfactory dysfunction (23). The quantitative assessment of the smell function in a clinical setting is typically conducted using psychophysical tests (13, 24- 27)). Examples of such tests include the Connecticut Chemosensory Clinical Research Center test (28, 29), and the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) (30, 31). A comprehensive test of olfactory function is the sniffin' stick test, which comprises tests of odor threshold, odor discrimination, and odor identification. As one of the most frequently used and reliable test batteries (32), it has been validated in several countries throughout the world (33- 37). Importantly, it is reusable and thus economical (38). However, in light of the effect of regional preferences, lifestyles, ethics, and cultures on the olfactory perception, an adaptation seems necessary (39- 42).
The tests that are most commonly used for assessing olfactory function are measurement of threshold, discrimination, and identification. With the sniffin' stick test, these 3 components of olfaction could be assessed, whereas the identification tests, such as UPSIT, could only be able to evaluate the identification ability (34, 43). According to previous studies, odor thresholds mainly draw on the function of peripheral structures of the olfactory system, whereas odor discrimination and odor identification deal with the complex processing of olfactory information (44, 45).
There is no standardized comprehensive smell test in our country to assess the olfactory performance as the ability to detection threshold, discrimination, and identification of odors. The previous olfactory test prepared in our country was only capable of evaluation of the odor identification ability (42, 43). We performed this study to culturally adapt the sniffin’ sticks test in the Iranian population. In accordance with Islamic laws enforced in Iran and given the importance of smell loss after a head trauma in contention or accident, the bodily injury liability is equivalent to the blood money of an adult. As the main problem currently being dealt with by the forensic experts is recognizing the people's malingering to lose their sense of smell, we aimed to provide a more trustworthy clinical tool to assess the olfactory function as well as to distinguish olfaction-related disorders in our community. This test is also especially important for specialists before and after performing rhinoplasty.
Methods
Ethics Statement
The study was conducted according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. A written informed consent was obtained from both patients and healthy participants before beginning the tests. The study protocol was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Iran University of Medical Sciences (IR.IUMS.REC.1398.208).
Participants and Inclusion Criteria
The population of this cross-sectional study consisted of patients with olfactory disorders in the age range of 15-80 years. A total of 513 people participated in this study, and 200 healthy participants helped determine odor familiarity for the first step of the test. A total of 313 participants (214 healthy volunteers as controls [79 men, mean age, 34.70 ± 3.4; range, 16-79 years] and 99 patients with olfactory disorder [66 men, mean age 35.92 ± 3.6; range, 17-71 years]) were recruited for the normative step of the test. The control participants were chosen from among healthy volunteers. Patients who complained of olfactory disorders with different etiologies (head trauma, upper tract respiratory infection, sino-nasal inflammation [chronic rhinosinusitis with/without polyposis]) were included in our study. The control group was selected from normosmic participants with no history of olfactory disorder who also did not have a current upper respiratory tract infection, diabetes, sinusitis, psychiatric or neurological diseases, serious head trauma, and neurodegenerative disorders (eg, Parkinson and Alzheimer disease).
Experimental Protocols:
The experiment was performed in 3 steps.
First Step: Determination of Odor Familiarity
To determine the odor familiarity of the Iranian population, 200 healthy participants were asked to rate 87 odor descriptors based on the familiarity of each odor using a 5-poit Likert scale in the range of 0 to 5 (0 = unfamiliar, 5 = highly familiar).
Second Step: Establishing Odors and Multiple-Choice Lists for the Odor Identification Test
After the first step and based on the original version of the test, we considered a list of 16 selective odorants with multiple distractors for the identification part of the Iranian version of the Ir-SST. The original distractors with a low familiarity rate (<75%) were replaced with more familiar odorants. Participants were asked to identify the odor within a multiple forced-choice task among a list of 4 odor descriptors. If the majority of participants were unable to identify the odor correctly, it was replaced with other familiar descriptors. The odorant samples were purchased from Adonis Gol Darou company with a suprathreshold concentration.
Third Step: Establishing Normative Data and Test Validity in Patients With Olfactory Loss
Two other components (odor threshold and discrimination tests) were added to the identification part. Then, all 3 subtests of the Ir-SST were performed for 214 control participants and 99 patients with olfactory loss to obtain normative data and assess the validity of the test. To examine the test-retest reliability of the Ir-SST, 39 volunteers out of 214 controls who had participated in the third step were selected randomly and reexamined after 2 to 4 weeks.
Sniffin’ Sticks Test
The sniffin’ sticks test comprises 3 subtests: odor threshold, odor discrimination, and odor identification tests. The test is based on pen-like odor dispensers and performed in a quiet and ventilated room. All participants should be reminded not to smoke, eat, or drink anything but water for at least 15 minutes before the test. Each pen is presented only once for 3 to 4 seconds, and placed about 2 cm beneath both nostrils. Information about the results is not given to participants during the test. The sum of the threshold, discrimination, and identification scores is considered as the TDI score. The description of olfactory tests is briefly given in the following (for more detail see the study presented by Hummel and et al (34). All olfactory tests are performed in a forced choice design.
Threshold Test
This test comprises 16 triplets of pens (48 pens totally) with red numbers from 1 to 16. The 3 pens in each triplet are distinguished by the color of their cap (red, green, and blue). The participants is asked to identify the red pen, which is impregnated with N-butanol diluted in water to establish the different concentrations from the 2 pens only filled with solvent. The odor threshold score (T) is the average of the last 4 turning points and has a range of 1 to 16.
Discrimination Test
In this test, 16 triplets of pens are presented to the participant; then, he/she is asked to recognize the green pen that has an odor different from the blue and red ones. The participants are blindfolded. The discrimination score (D) according to the number of correct responses ranges from 1 to 16.
Identification Test
This test consists of 16 pen-like odor dispensers. Using lists of 4 items for each odor of the odor items, the participants select the descriptor that best describes the odor presented. The identification score (I) according to the correct response number ranges from 1 to 16.
Statistical Analysis
The results are presented as mean ± SD and range (min-max) for continuous variables. Frequency and percentage are provided for categorical variables. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to check the normal distribution of data. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to compare TDI scores among the 3 age groups (16-35, 36-55, >55 years). Also, an independent sample t-test was performed to compare TDI scores between men and women. The Pearson correlation coefficient test was performed to explore the relationship between continuous variables. Data analysis was done using SPSS 24 software and significance level was set at 0.05
Results
Odor Familiarity
A total of 200 healthy participants (125 men, 75 women, mean age, 35.5 ± 20.25) were recruited in the first step of the study. The percentages of odor familiarity rate for 87odor descriptors, as rated on a Likert-type scale, are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Survey results for familiarity of odor descriptors. After using a Likert type scale ranging from 0 to 5 (0=unknown, 5=highly familiar), average results are presentedin a percentage scale.
| Percent of correct answers (%) | Odor samples (percent of correct answers, %) |
|---|---|
| <75 | Asparagus (10), Berry (19), Amber (27), Cedar (30), Fir (31), Cloves (34), Blackberry (36), Liquorice (45), Tea (46), Shrimp (47), Rum (50), Curry (51), Anise (52), Sauerkraut (53), Chamomile (54), Spinach (55), Menthol (56), Mustard (57), Sumac (57), Almond (59), Turpentine (60), Raspberry (61), wine (62), Olive (63), Grapefruit (64), Ginger (65), Cherry (65), Sour cherry (67), Paper (68), Pennyroyal (72), Cumin (72), Rum (74), Wine (74), Gummy bear (75) |
| 75-90 | Plum (76), Apricot (78), Crud (78), Angelica (78), Fava Beans (78), Leather (79), Walnut (79), Turmeric (79), Milk (80), Butter (80), Candle Smoke (81), Tomato (81), Rubber (81), Chewing gum (83), Hazelnut (83), Pepper (83), Grass (83), Carrot (83), Rose (84), Pineapple (84), Coconut (84), Vanilla (84), Chives (84), Pear (85), Cheese (87), Cardamom (88),Ham (88), Strawberry (88), Cookie (88), Chocolate (89), Honey (89),Melon (89), Saffron (89), Peach (90), Lemon (90), |
| >90 | Glue (92), Banana (94), Smoke (94), Cantaloupe (94), Vinegar (94), Apple (95), Peppermint (95), Cinnamon (95), Watermelon (95), Bread (96), Cucumber (97), Fish (97), Coffee (97), Orange (98), Vinegar (98), Onion (98), Cigarette (98), Garlic (99) |
Odor Identification Test
Based on the original version, 16 odorants were selected (see the original answering sheet in Table 2) and the identification part of the sniffin’ sticks test was modified according to the results of the familiarity survey. We replaced 6 sample odors (leather, liquorice, turpentine, cloves, anise, and fish) in the original answer sheet. Leather and fish odorants were not accessible in Iran and their procurement was highly expensive. Also, the 4 remaining odorants were unfamiliar for the Iranian population. Therefore, these odors were replaced with vanilla, cantaloupe, vinegar, smoke, cardamom, and honey odors. After administering the modified version to the healthy people, we found that the identification percentage of 4 odors (honey, apple, orange, and cantaloupe) was lower than 75%. Therefore, we changed distractors in the verbal lists for the identification of these odors and created a new list. The final version of the answer sheet for the identification part of the Ir-SST is presented in Table 3.. The odor identification percentage of the Ir-SST is shown in Fig. 1..
Table 2. Original version of answering sheet for the Iranian adaptation of the 16-item Odor Identification part of Ir-SST .
| 1 | Orange (98%) | Blackberry (36%) | Strawberry (88%) | Pineapple (84%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | *Leather (79%) | Smoke (94%) | Glue (92%) | Grass (83%) |
| 3 | Cinnamon (95%) | Honey (89%) | Vanilla (84%) | Chocolate (89%) |
| 4 | Peppermint (95%) | Chives (85%) | Fir (31%) | Onion (98%) |
| 5 | Banana (94%) | Coconut (84%) | Walnut (79%) | Cherry (65%) |
| 6 | Lemon (90%) | Peach (90%) | Apple (95%) | Grapefruit (64%) |
| 7 | *Liquorice (45%) | Gummi bear (75%) | Chewing gum (83%) | Cookie (88%) |
| 8 | *Turpentine (60%) | Mustard (57%) | Rubber (81%) | Menthol (56%) |
| 9 | Garlic (99%) | Onion (98%) | Sauerkraut (53%) | Carrot (83%) |
| 10 | Coffee (97%) | Cigarette (98%) | Wine (62%) | Candle Smoke (81%) |
| 11 | Apple (95%) | Melon (89%) | Peach (90%) | Orange (98%) |
| 12 | *Cloves (34%) | Pepper (83%) | Cinnamon (95%) | Mustard (57%) |
| 13 | Pineapple (84%) | Pear (85%) | Plum (76%) | Peach (90%) |
| 14 | Rose (84%) | Chamomile (54%) | Raspberry (61%) | Cherry (65%) |
| 15 | *Anise (52%) | Rum (50%) | Honey (89%) | Fir (31%) |
| 16 | *Fish (97%) | Bread (96%) | Cheese (87%) | Ham (88%) |
Numbers in brackets indicate the percentage of correct answers based on Likert scale. Bold words indicate correct answers. Items marked with asterisk were replaced. Also, the descriptors that are familiar less than 75% were replaced more familiar ones (Italic fonts).
Table 3. Final version of answering sheet in Iranian adaptation of 16-item Identification part of Ir-SST. All descriptors were familiar to more than 75% of the subjects.
| Number | Original English descriptor(Persian Translation) | Descriptor 1 | Descriptor 2 | Descriptor 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Orange (پرتقال) | Fish | Onion | Milk |
| 2 | Vanilla (وانیل) | Onion | Peppermint | Grass |
| 3 | Cinnamon (دارچین) | Honey | Vanilla | Chocolate |
| 4 | Peppermint (نعناع) | Chives | Curd | Onion |
| 5 | Banana (موز) | Coconut | Walnut | Apple |
| 6 | Lemon (لیموشیرین) | Peach | Apple | Pear |
| 7 | Cantaloupe (طالبی) | Carrot | Plum | Apple |
| 8 | Vinegar (سرکه) | Curd | Bread | Butter |
| 9 | Garlic (سیر) | Onion | Fava beans | Carrot |
| 10 | Coffee (قهوه) | Vinegar | Cinnamon | vanilla |
| 11 | Apple (سیب) | Garlic | Coffee | Grass |
| 12 | Smoke(دود) | Hazelnut | Milk | Coconut |
| 13 | Pineapple (آناناس) | Pear | Plum | Peach |
| 14 | Rose (گل رز) | Apple | Lemon | Angelica |
| 15 | Cardamom (هل) | Honey | Cinnamon | Saffron |
| 16 | Honey(عسل) | Bread | Peppermint | Lemon |
Fig. 1.
Percentage of Identification Items in Ir-SST
Normative Data and Validation of Ir-SST
The Ir-SST was administered to 214 control participants and 99 patients with olfactory disorder to examine normative values and testing validation in the Iranian population. Most of patients (66 out of 99) explained that their olfactory dysfunction was caused by head trauma and the rest of them had dysfunction after sino-nasal diseases and post-viral infection. The demographic characteristics of these patients are shown in Table 4.
Table 4. Demographic characteristics of patients with olfactory disorders.
| Etiology | Number | Age range | Gender | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male | Female | |||
| Post-traumatic | 41 | 17-69 | 25 | 16 |
| Post-infection | 22 | 20-71 | 10 | 12 |
| Sino-nasal inflammation (chronic rhinosinusitis with and without polyposis) | 36 | 18-61 | 16 | 20 |
The mean values of each part of identification, discrimination, and threshold tests and the mean TDI score among healthy participants in 3 age groups (15-35, 36-55, > 55 years) and patients are depicted in Table 5.. Our results revealed that the mean TDI score was significantly lower in patients than in controls (13.6 ± 5.24 vs 34.3 ± 3.41; p < 0.001) (Fig. 2.). The Kolmogorov Smirnov test was used to check the normality of the TDI scores. After confirming normal distribution, we compared the mean TDI scores between men and women in 3 age groups in the healthy participants. According to the results, age and gender were not significantly related to the TDI score (Fig. 3.). The comparison of mean TDI scores in different age groups indicated a nonsignificant difference.
Table 5. Ir-SST normative data from healthy participants in three age ranges and patients with self-reported olfactory loss.
| 15-35 years (n=111) | Identification | Discrimination | Threshold | TDI | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | 15.1±1.1 | 12.9±1.4 | 7.4±2.9 | 35.4±3.3 | ||
| Range (Min- Max) | 6 (10-16) | 7 (9-16) | 12.5 (2.5-15) | 15.2 (29.2-44.5) | ||
| Percentiles | 10 | 13.2 | 11.0 | 4.5 | 31.5 | |
| 25 | 15.0 | 12.0 | 4.7 | 33.0 | ||
| 75 | 16.0 | 14.0 | 10.0 | 37.5 | ||
| 90 | 16.0 | 15.0 | 11.5 | 40.2 | ||
| 36-55 years (n= 49) | I | D | T | TDI | ||
| Mean | 14.8±1.2 | 12.9±1.2 | 7.1±3.0 | 34.8±3.4 | ||
| Range (Min-Max) | 4 (12-16) | 7 (9-16) | 11.0 (3.5-14.5) | 13.50 (30-43.5) | ||
| Percentiles | 10 | 13.0 | 11.8 | 4.5 | 31.4 | |
| 25 | 14.0 | 12.0 | 4.5 | 32.5 | ||
| 75 | 16.0 | 14.0 | 10.0 | 37.2 | ||
| 90 | 16.0 | 14.2 | 11.7 | 39.7 | ||
| >55 years (n=54) | I | D | T | TDI | ||
| Mean | 12.6±2.0 | 11.4±1.2 | 7.7±3.16 | 31.8±3.4 | ||
| Range (Min-Max) | 8 (8-16) | 5 (10-15) | 12.0 (2.5-14.5) | 17.9 (24.3-42.2) | ||
| Percentiles | 10 | 9.4 | 10.0 | 4.5 | 30.9 | |
| 25 | 12.2 | 11.0 | 4.8 | 32.0 | ||
| 75 | 16.0 | 13.0 | 10.2 | 35.2 | ||
| 90 | 16.0 | 14.0 | 13.2 | 38.1 | ||
| Patient group (n=99) | I | D | T | TDI | ||
| Mean ± SD | 5.8±3.3 | 6.1±2.6 | 2.3±2.7 | 13.6±5.2 | ||
| Range (Min-Max) | 14 (0-14) | 13 (0-13) | 14.2 (0.5-14.75) | 22.5 (4-26.5) | ||
| Percentiles | 10 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 1.0 | 7.5 | |
| 25 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 10.0 | ||
| 75 | 8.0 | 8.0 | 2.7 | 16.7 | ||
| 90 | 11.0 | 10.0 | 6.0 | 22.5 | ||
TDI: total score (sum of threshold, discrimination, identification scores). SD = standard deviation
Fig. 2.
Box plot comparing TDI scores between healthy con-trols and patients. TDI= composite score of T, D and I. T = threshold; D = discrimination; I = Identification. Significant differences were observed between two groups (***𝑃< 0.001). The lower borders of boxes indicate the 25th percen-tile of the data distribution, the upper border of the box indi-cates the 75th percentile, and the bold horizontal line inside the box indicates the median. The upper and lower whiskers show the maximum and minimum TDI scores, respectively.
Fig. 3.
Box plot of TDI score for the three age groups and for male and female participants in the healthy group. The lower borders of the boxes indicate the 25th percentile of the data distribution, the upper border of the box shows the 75th per-centile, the bold horizontal line inside the box indicates the median (TDI = composite score of T, D and I. T = threshold; D = discrimination; I = Identification).
Test-Retest Reliability
To investigate the reliability of the test, of 214 healthy participants, 39 were randomly selected. After 2 to 4 weeks, the mean TDI score changed from 35.91 ± 3.20 in the first test to 35.71 ± 2.70 in the second one. The test-retest correlation was 0.81 (p < 0.001) (Fig. 4.).
Fig. 4.
Test-retest reliability of Iranian Sniffin’ Stick test. Pear-son correlation of test scores (TDI: r= 0.81, P<0.001).
Sensitivity and Specificity
The results of the study showed a TDI sensitivity of 95.2% (95% CI, 96.34-99) and a specificity of about 93.50% (95% CI, 89.27-96.38), with a positive predictive value of 87.61% and a negative predictive value of 89.7%. Receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis confirmed the high accuracy of the Ir-SST (95.53) (95% CI, 92.61-97.53) (Fig. 5.).
Fig. 5.
Area under the curve (AUC) for TDI 0.95 (95% CI: 0, 98); Threshold 0.90 (95% CI: 0.86, 0.94); Discrimination 0.98 (95% CI: 0.97, 0.99) and Identification 0.98 (95% CI: 0.97, 0.99), p<0.001. TDI = composite score of T, D and I. T = Threshold; D = Discrimination; I = Identification.
One-way ANOVA was also conducted to investigate the influence of age on olfactory function. No significant difference was observed between different age groups (Fig. 6.).
Fig. 6.
Bar graph shows TDI score in different age groups in healthy people. There was no significant difference between age groups (Data presented as mean ± SEM).
Discussion
Normative data for the Iranian version of the sniffin` sticks test indicates the desirable validity and reliability of this test. The sensitivity of the 3 subtests, which distinguish patients with olfactory disorders from healthy individuals based on the TDI score, has been evaluated separately for the main sniff stick test and its Iranian version. The Iranian sniff-stick test can evaluate the human olfactory system with 95.2% sensitivity. The sensitivity of 3 subtests, discriminating patients with olfactory disorders from healthy participants based on the TDI score, was assessed separately for the original SST test and the Ir-SST test. Ir-SST can accurately assess the human olfactory system with a high sensitivity of 95.2%.
Olfactory tests have been shown to possess strong cultural affinities (46, 47). Based on the results of the familiarity survey, in the original version of the identification smell test, some odors were replaced with familiar odorants for the Iranian population for the sake of cultural adaptation. Some distractors were also modified to decrease cultural bias factors. Finally, we ended up with odor identifiability of up to 75%.
Our modified version of the sniffin’ stick test, culturally adopted for Iranian population, can evaluate all 3 components of olfaction (threshold, discrimination, and identification)(34, 46), despite its time-consuming nature for application in a crowded clinical setting (30, 31, 43, 48). However, the UPSIT presented by Taherkhani and et al (43). is only able to assess the odor identification ability. Our results were also consistent with previous findings (44, 45), suggesting that the odor detection threshold represents basic olfactory function, The other 2 tests (detection and differentiation) are related to higher levels of olfactory processing.
The Ir-SST revealed a significant difference between TDI scores of normosmic participants and patients with olfactory disorders. The results showed that the TDI score in patients was significantly lower than in healthy controls, as matched for age and gender (p < 0.001). TDI scores of the Iranian sniffin’ sticks test were significantly high in normal participants.
The olfactory function declines with advancing age, as demonstrated by Doty et al and Hummel et al. (11, 49). In our study, the mean TDI score dropped with aging, but this fall was not significant. Also, no significant relationship was observed between gender and TDI score. The Ir-SST had high sensitivity and specificity. Overall, the reliability of the complete Ir-SST test was higher than the reliability of odor identification or odor threshold tests reported in the previous studies (35).
The TDI score indicated that the Ir-SST was a clinically suitable test with favorable test-retest reliability (r = 0.81; p < 0.001) and an area under the ROC curve of 0.98.
The identification test correlation (r = 0.83) was considerably higher than that of the German version of sniffin` sticks (r = 0.73) (34, 35). Compared with odor identification tests, few studies have investigated the reliability of threshold tests (50, 51). We surveyed the reliability of all 3 components. According to our results, the reliability of the discrimination subtest was r = 0.56, which is lower than that of the identification and threshold subtests (r = 0.77). The results demonstrated the high accuracy (95.53) of the Ir-SST test.
This study had a limitation. The lack of variety in cultural background, ethnic origin, climate, and geographic location could influence the olfactory function. Further studies with sample sizes from different cultures (including all ethnicities in diverse climatic conditions) are required to achieve more accurate results.
Conclusion
This study provided distinct normative data for all 3 age groups and both genders. According to the results, the Ir-SST (the SST test culturally adapted to the Iranian population) allows to distinguish “normosmic” people from patients with “hyposmia” and “anosmia” with high sensitivity and specificity. It offers a reliable screening tool that can be used in clinical settings or for research purposes. The accurate and reliable assessment of the olfactory function is particularly important, considering its clinical, safety, and medico-legal implications.
Conflict of Interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank Professor Thomas Hummel for his insightful comments and revision of this manuscript. Special thanks are owed to all participants who voluntary took part in this study.
Cite this article as : Kamrava SK, Hosseini SF, Farhadi M, Jalessi M, Talebi A, Amini E, Alizadeh R. Cultural Adaptation of the Iranian Version of the “Sniffin’ Sticks” Olfactory Test. Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2021 (17 Nov);35:153. https://doi.org/10.47176/mjiri.35.153
References
- 1.Enache R, Sarafoleanu D. Taste and smell disorders. Rom. J
- 2.Frasnelli J, Hummel T. Olfactory dysfunction and daily life. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2005:231. doi: 10.1007/s00405-004-0796-y. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 3.Joung YI, Yi HJ, Lee SK, Im TH, Cho SH, Ko Y. Posttraumatic Anosmia and Ageusia: Incidence and Recovery with Relevance to the Hemorrhage and Fracture on the Frontal Base. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2007:1.
- 4.McKenna S. Book Review: Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials (2nd ed. ) (1996)
- 5.Miwa T, Furukawa M, Tsukatani T, Costanzo RM, DiNardo LJ, Reiter ER. Impact of olfactory impairment on quality of life and disability. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2001:497. doi: 10.1001/archotol.127.5.497. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 6.Altundag A, Tekeli H, Salihoglu M, Cayonu M, Kendirli MT, Yasar H. et al. A Study on Olfactory Dysfunction in Turkish Population with using Survey Method and Validated Olfactory Testing. Indian J. Otolaryngol doi: 10.1007/s12070-014-0720-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 7.Pellegrino R, Hahner A, Bojanowski V, Hummel C, Gerber J, Hummel T. Olfactory function in patients with hyposmia compared to healthy subjects - An fMRI study. Rhinology. 2016:374. doi: 10.4193/Rhino16.098. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 8.Levy LM, Henkin RI, Lin CS, Finley A. Rapid imaging of olfaction by functional MRI (fMRI): identification of presence and type of hyposmia. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1999:767. doi: 10.1097/00004728-199909000-00026. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 9.Landis BN, Hummel T. New Evidence for High Occurrence of Olfactory Dysfunctions within the Population. Am. J doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2005.07.039. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 10.Savovic S, Ivetic V, Lemajic S, Komazec Z, Kljajic V, Pilija V. The effect of age on the sense of smell in health individuals. Med Pregl. 2002:221. doi: 10.2298/mpns0206221s. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 11.Doty RL, Shaman P, Applebaum SL, Giberson R, Siksorski L, Rosenberg L. Smell identification ability: changes with age. Science (New York, NY) 1984:1441. doi: 10.1126/science.6505700. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 12.Mackay-Sim A, Johnston AN, Owen C, Burne TH. Olfactory ability in the healthy population: reassessing presbyosmia. Chem Senses. 2006:763. doi: 10.1093/chemse/bjl019. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 13.Welge-Lüssen A, Hummel T. Management of smell and taste disorders: a practical guide for clinicians. 2014
- 14.Savovic S, Pilija V, Buljcik M, Kljajic V, Lemajic S. [Sense of smell in patients with bilateral nasal polyposis] Med Pregl. 2004:164. doi: 10.2298/mpns0404164s. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 15.Hox V, Bobic S, Callebaux I, Jorissen M, Hellings PW. Nasal obstruction and smell impairment in nasal polyp disease: correlation between objective and subjective parameters. Rhinology. 2010:426. doi: 10.4193/Rhino10.049. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 16.Collet S, Grulois V, Bertrand B, Rombaux P. Post-traumatic olfactory dysfunction: a cohort study and update. B-ENT. 2009 [PubMed]
- 17.Toledano A, Rodríguez G, Martín AM, Onrubia T, Galindo N. Quality of life in patients with smell loss due to upper respiratory tract infections. Am. J doi: 10.1016/j.amjoto.2010.11.002. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 18.Cho SH. Clinical Diagnosis and Treatment of Olfactory Dysfunction. Hanyang Med Rev. 2014:107.
- 19.Kern RC, Quinn B, Rosseau G, Farbman AI. Post-traumatic olfactory dysfunction. Laryngoscope. 2000:2106. doi: 10.1097/00005537-200012000-00025. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 20.Duncan HJ, Seiden AM. Long-term follow-up of olfactory loss secondary to head trauma and upper respiratory tract infection. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1995:1183. doi: 10.1001/archotol.1995.01890100087015. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 21.Szaleniec J, Wróbel A, Stręk P, Kowalczyk M, Bylica E, Przeklasa M. et al. Smell impairment in chronic rhinosinusitis – evaluation of endoscopic sinus surgery results and review of literature concerning olfactory function predictors. Otolaryngol Pol. 2015:33. doi: 10.5604/00306657.1131143. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 22.Marin C, Vilas D, Langdon C, Alobid I, López-Chacón M, Haehner A. et al. Olfactory Dysfunction in Neurodegenerative Diseases. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2018:42. doi: 10.1007/s11882-018-0796-4. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 23.Mishra A, Doty RL. Olfaction - Quantification and management. Indian J. Otolaryngol doi: 10.1007/BF02991522. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 24.A Tourbier, Doty R. Sniff Magnitude Test: Relationship to Odor Identification, Detection, and Memory Tests in a Clinic Population. Chemical Senses; 2007. pp doi: 10.1093/chemse/bjm020. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 25.Simmen D, Briner HR. Olfaction in rhinology--methods of assessing the sense of smell. Rhinology. 2006:98. [PubMed]
- 26.Briner HR, Simmen D. Smell diskettes as screening test of olfaction. Rhinology. 1999:145. [PubMed]
- 27.Cardesin A, Alobid I, Benitez P, Sierra E, de Haro, Bernal-Sprekelsen M. et al. Barcelona Smell Test - 24 (BAST-24): validation and smell characteristics in the healthy Spanish population. Rhinology. 2006:83. [PubMed]
- 28.Heywood PG, Costanzo RM. Identifying normosmics: a comparison of two populations. AM. J doi: 10.1016/s0196-0709(86)80006-0. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 29.Cain WS, Gent JF, Goodspeed RB, Leonard G. Evaluation of olfactory dysfunction in the Connecticut Chemosensory Clinical Research Center. Laryngoscope. 1988:83. doi: 10.1288/00005537-198801000-00017. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 30.Doty RL, Shaman P, Dann M. Development of the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test: a standardized microencapsulated test of olfactory function. Physiol Behav. 1984:489. doi: 10.1016/0031-9384(84)90269-5. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 31.Doty RL, Shaman P, Kimmelman CP, Dann MS. University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test: a rapid quantitative olfactory function test for the clinic. Laryngoscope. 1984:176. doi: 10.1288/00005537-198402000-00004. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 32.Oniz A, Erdogan I, O. Ikiz A, Evirgen N, Ozgoren M. The Modified Sniffin' Sticks Test in Turkish Population Based on Odor Familiarity Survey. J
- 33.Rumeau C, Nguyen DT, Jankowski R. How to assess olfactory performance with the Sniffin’ Sticks test®. Eur. Ann doi: 10.1016/j.anorl.2015.08.004. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 34.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. 1997:39. doi: 10.1093/chemse/22.1.39. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 35.Haehner A, Mayer AM, Landis BN, Pournaras I, Lill K, Gudziol V. et al. High test-retest reliability of the extended version of the "Sniffin' Sticks" test. Chem senses. 2009:705. doi: 10.1093/chemse/bjp057. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 36.Tekeli H, Altundağ A, Salihoğlu M, Cayönü M, Kendirli MT. The applicability of the "Sniffin' Sticks" olfactory test in a Turkish population. Med Sci Mon Int Med J Exp Clin Res. 2013 doi: 10.12659/MSM.889838. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 37.Cho JH, Jeong YS, Lee YJ, Hong SC, Yoon JH, Kim JK. The Korean version of the Sniffin' stick (KVSS) test and its validity in comparison with the cross-cultural smell identification test (CC-SIT) Auris Nasus Larynx. 2009:280. doi: 10.1016/j.anl.2008.07.005. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 38.Kopala LC, Good KP. Olfactory identification ability in patients with panic disorder. J Psychiatry Neurosci. 1996:340. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 39.Oleszkiewicz A, Taut M, Sorokowska A, Radwan A, Kamel R, Hummel T. Development of the Arabic version of the “Sniffin’ Sticks” odor identification test. Eur. Arch doi: 10.1007/s00405-015-3718-2. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 40.Niklassen AS, Ovesen T, Fernandes H, Fjaeldstad AW. Danish validation of sniffin' sticks olfactory test for threshold, discrimination, and identification. Laryngoscope. 2018:1759. doi: 10.1002/lary.27052. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 41.Kamrava SK, Jalessi M, Ebrahimnejad S, Ghalehbaghi S, Amini E, Asghari A. et al. Evaluation of Culturally-Familiar Odorants for a Persian Smell Identification Test. Iran. J [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 42.Kamrava SK, Farhadi M, Jalessi M, Khosravian B, Pousti B, Amin Tehran. et al. University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification on Iranian Population. Iran Red Crescent Med J. 2014:e7926. doi: 10.5812/ircmj.7926. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 43.Taherkhani S, Moztarzadeh F, Mehdizadeh Seraj, Hashemi Nazari, Taherkhani F, Gharehdaghi J. et al. Iran Smell Identification Test (Iran-SIT): a Modified Version of the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) for Iranian Population. Chemosens. Percept
- 44.Hedner M, Larsson M, Arnold N, Zucco GM, Hummel T. Cognitive factors in odor detection, odor discrimination, and odor identification tasks. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2010:1062. doi: 10.1080/13803391003683070. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 45.Lötsch J, Reichmann H, Hummel T. Different Odor Tests Contribute Differently to the Evaluation of Olfactory Loss. Chem Senses. 2007:17. doi: 10.1093/chemse/bjm058. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 46.Ribeiro JC, Simões J, Silva F, Silva ED, Hummel C, Hummel T. et al. Cultural Adaptation of the Portuguese Version of the “Sniffin’ Sticks” Smell Test: Reliability, Validity, and Normative Data. PloS One. 2016:e0148937. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0148937. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 47.Doty RL, Marcus A, Lee W. W. Development of the 12-Item Cross-Cultural Smell Identification Test (CC-SIT) Laryngoscope doi: 10.1097/00005537-199603000-00021. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 48.Denzer MY, Gailer S, Kern DW, Schumm LP, Thuerauf N, Kornhuber J. et al. Quantitative Validation of the n-Butanol Sniffin' Sticks Threshold Pens. Chemosens Percept. 2014:91. doi: 10.1007/s12078-014-9168-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 49.Hummel T, Kobal G, Gudziol H, Mackay-Sim A. Normative data for the “Sniffin’ Sticks” including tests of odor identification, odor discrimination, and olfactory thresholds: an upgrade based on a group of more than 3,000 subjects. European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology. 2007:237. doi: 10.1007/s00405-006-0173-0. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 50.Doty RL, McKeown DA, Lee WW, Shaman P. A Study of the Test-retest Reliability of Ten Olfactory Tests. Chem Senses. 1995:645. doi: 10.1093/chemse/20.6.645. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 51.Nordin S, Bramerson A, Liden E, Bende M. The Scandinavian Odor-Identification Test: development, reliability, validity and normative data. Acta oto-laryngologica. 1998:226. doi: 10.1080/00016489850154946. [DOI] [PubMed]