The “Sniffin’ Sticks” test kit is a validated and commonly used tool for assessment of olfactory function in subjects with normal sense of smell and in individuals with smell loss. That test incorporates subtests for odor threshold, discrimination, and identification. To gain higher subtest reproducibility, tests on odor discrimination and odor identification were extended using 32 instead of the usually applied 16 single trials each. In developing the extended Sniffin’ Sticks test, a number of preliminary experiments were performed in 46 healthy, normosmic individuals 1) to evaluate intensity and familiarity of the additionally selected odors, 2) to select distractors for the discrimination and identification test, and 3) to evaluate the test–retest reliability of each subtest. Furthermore, the extended test was applied to 126 patients with olfactory loss and 71 normosmic individuals. Follow-up investigation could be performed in 69 controls within an average interval of 4 days. Results revealed significant differences between patients and healthy subjects. Estimated intensity and familiarity of the newly selected 16 items of the discrimination test did not differ significantly from the 16 standard items. Test–retest reliability was found to be r = 0.80 (odor discrimination), r = 0.88 (odor identification), and r = 0.92 (odor threshold). In conclusion, the extended test kit allows a precise evaluation of olfactory function, especially when different olfactory tasks are assessed using individual subtests. Furthermore, the high test–retest reliability of both the 16 and the 32-item tests allows the evaluation of even relatively small changes of olfactory function over time by means of either test.

Decrease of olfactory function in Parkinson's disease (PD) is a well-investigated fact. Studies indicate that pharmacological treatment of PD fails to restore olfactory function in PD patients. The aim of this investigation was whether patients with PD would benefit from “training” with odors in terms of an improvement of their general olfactory function. It has been hypothesized that olfactory training should produce both an improved sensitivity towards the odors used in the training process and an overall increase of olfactory function. We recruited 70 subjects with PD and olfactory loss into this single-center, prospective, controlled non-blinded study. Thirty-five patients were assigned to the olfactory training group and 35 subjects to the control group (no training). Olfactory training was performed over a period of 12 weeks while patients exposed themselves twice daily to four odors (phenyl ethyl alcohol: rose, eucalyptol: eucalyptus, citronellal: lemon, and eugenol: cloves). Olfactory testing was performed before and after training using the “Sniffin' Sticks” (thresholds for phenyl ethyl alcohol, tests for odor discrimination, and odor identification) in addition to threshold tests for the odors used in the training process. Compared to baseline, trained PD patients experienced a significant increase in their olfactory function, which was observed for the Sniffin' Sticks test score and for thresholds for the odors used in the training process. Olfactory function was unchanged in PD patients who did not perform olfactory training. The present results indicate that olfactory training may increase olfactory sensitivity in PD patients.

Introduction: Recent reports suggest that sudden smell loss might be a symptom of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The aim of this study was to investigate the frequency of olfactory loss in an outpatient population who presented to a coronavirus testing center during a 2-week period and to evaluate the diagnostic value of the symptom “sudden smell loss” for screening procedures. Methods: In this cross-sectional controlled cohort study, 500 patients who presented with symptoms of a common cold to a corona testing center and fulfilled corona testing criteria completed a standardized diagnostic questionnaire which included the patients’ main symptoms, time course, and an additional self-assessment of the patients’ current smell, taste function, and nasal breathing compared to the level before the onset of symptoms. Results: Out of the 500 patients, 69 presented with olfactory loss. Twenty-two of them subsequently tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Only 12 out of the patients without olfactory loss tested positive, resulting in a frequency of 64.7% for the symptom “sudden smell loss” in COVID-19 patients. Compared to COVID-19 patients without smell loss, they were significantly younger and less severely affected. Changes in nasal airflow were significantly more pronounced in SARS-CoV-2 negative patients with olfactory complaints compared to the patients with smell loss who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. By excluding patients with a blocked nose, the symptom “sudden smell loss” can be attested a high specificity (97%) and a sensitivity of 65% with a positive predictive value of 63% and negative predictive value of 97% for COVID-19. Conclusion: Considering the high frequency of smell loss in non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients, acute olfactory impairment should be recognized as an early symptom of the disease and should be tested for on a regular basis. In contrast to other acute viral smell impairment, COVID-19-associated smell loss seems to be only rarely accompanied by a severely blocked nose.

(2009). Olfactory dysfunction as a diagnostic marker for Parkinson’s disease. Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics: Vol. 9, No. 12, pp. 1773-1779.