Olfactory dysfunction in passive vs active smoking

Background The aim of this study is to assess the olfactory functions of passive smokers compared to active smokers and nonsmokers. Methods This prospective case‐control study included 30 nonsmokers, 30 passive smokers, and 30 active smoker participants. All groups were matched for gender and age. T...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology 2021-10, Vol.6 (5), p.932-939
Main Authors: Çengel Kurnaz, Senem, Tahir, Emel, Kavaz, Esra
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Age
Allergy, Rhinology, and Immunology
Cigarettes
Olfaction disorders
Original Research
Regression analysis
secondhand smoking
smell
Smoking
Tobacco smoke
Womens health
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5711-d1362d4905ce8df919b205ca9ec4db3e594dda35469ccb3778a60e09cb0f5b763
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5711-d1362d4905ce8df919b205ca9ec4db3e594dda35469ccb3778a60e09cb0f5b763
container_end_page 939
container_issue 5
container_start_page 932
container_title Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology
container_volume 6
creator Çengel Kurnaz, Senem
Tahir, Emel
Kavaz, Esra
description Background The aim of this study is to assess the olfactory functions of passive smokers compared to active smokers and nonsmokers. Methods This prospective case‐control study included 30 nonsmokers, 30 passive smokers, and 30 active smoker participants. All groups were matched for gender and age. The Sino‐Nasal Outcome Test 22 (SNOT‐22) and Sniffin' Sticks test battery were administered to all subjects. Threshold (T), discrimination (D), and identification (I) scores were noted. Olfactory function was subjectively assessed as 0: severe dysfunction and 5: no problem. Results Overall, TDI scores of active smokers (24.78 ± 3.02) and passive smokers (24.90 ± 2.45) were significantly lower than nonsmokers (34.23 ± 3.46). There was no statistically significant difference between passive smokers and smokers (F(2,87) = 13.47, P 
doi_str_mv 10.1002/lio2.671
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_doaj_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_7797e0bff8c14e70a721e4344b7c0733</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_7797e0bff8c14e70a721e4344b7c0733</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>2585925616</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5711-d1362d4905ce8df919b205ca9ec4db3e594dda35469ccb3778a60e09cb0f5b763</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kUuLFDEYRYMozjAO-AukwI2bGr-8k40gg4-Ght7oOqSSVJu2utImVS39703Z4zgjuMolORwuuQi9xHCDAcjbISZyIyR-gi4JlapVQNXTB_kCXZeyAwAsiBAKnqMLyoQmWutLRDZDb92U8qnxp9LPo5tiGps4NgdbSjyG5liaCiyp7NP3OG5foGe9HUq4vjuv0NePH77cfm7Xm0-r2_fr1nGJcesxFcQzDdwF5XuNdUdqtjo45jsauGbeW8prFec6KqWyAgJo10HPOynoFVqdvT7ZnTnkuLf5ZJKN5vdFyltj8xTdEIyUWgbo-l45zIIEKwkOjDLWSQeS0up6d3Yd5m4fvAvjlO3wSPr4ZYzfzDYdjeKYMi6r4M2dIKcfcyiT2cfiwjDYMaS5GMIV14QLvPR-_Q-6S3Me61ctFCagJGN_hS6nUnLo78tgMMuuZtnV1F0r-uph-Xvwz4oVaM_AzziE039FZr3akEX4C1uiqv8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2581208744</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Olfactory dysfunction in passive vs active smoking</title><source>Wiley Online Library Open Access</source><source>Publicly Available Content Database</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Çengel Kurnaz, Senem ; Tahir, Emel ; Kavaz, Esra</creator><creatorcontrib>Çengel Kurnaz, Senem ; Tahir, Emel ; Kavaz, Esra</creatorcontrib><description>Background The aim of this study is to assess the olfactory functions of passive smokers compared to active smokers and nonsmokers. Methods This prospective case‐control study included 30 nonsmokers, 30 passive smokers, and 30 active smoker participants. All groups were matched for gender and age. The Sino‐Nasal Outcome Test 22 (SNOT‐22) and Sniffin' Sticks test battery were administered to all subjects. Threshold (T), discrimination (D), and identification (I) scores were noted. Olfactory function was subjectively assessed as 0: severe dysfunction and 5: no problem. Results Overall, TDI scores of active smokers (24.78 ± 3.02) and passive smokers (24.90 ± 2.45) were significantly lower than nonsmokers (34.23 ± 3.46). There was no statistically significant difference between passive smokers and smokers (F(2,87) = 13.47, P &lt; .001)). All subscores are negatively affected by active or passive smoking. The greatest impact of smoking was on threshold scores (η2T = 0.719), followed by identification (η2I = 0.353) and discrimination (η2D = 0.282) scores. SNOT‐22 and TDI scores were weakly (r = −.352) correlated as subjective assessment, and TDI scores were moderately correlated (r: .539) (P values &lt; .001). Age and pack‐years cigarette dosage had a negative effect on the TDI score (TDI = 26.386 − (0.084 × age) − (0.072 × Pack.Year)) according to stepwise linear regression model (F = 10.187; P = .001). Conclusions Passive smoking has nearly the same adverse effect on olfactory function as active smoking. The threshold scores are the most negatively affected. The olfactory effect of cigarette smoke may not be directly related to nasal inflammation. Olfactory neuronal pathways should be investigated to elucidate the exact pathophysiology. Level of Evidence 3b.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2378-8038</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2378-8038</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/lio2.671</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34692999</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hoboken, USA: John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>Age ; Allergy, Rhinology, and Immunology ; Cigarettes ; Olfaction disorders ; Original Research ; Regression analysis ; secondhand smoking ; smell ; Smoking ; Tobacco smoke ; Womens health</subject><ispartof>Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 2021-10, Vol.6 (5), p.932-939</ispartof><rights>2021 The Authors. published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of The Triological Society.</rights><rights>2021 The Authors. Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of The Triological Society.</rights><rights>2021. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5711-d1362d4905ce8df919b205ca9ec4db3e594dda35469ccb3778a60e09cb0f5b763</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5711-d1362d4905ce8df919b205ca9ec4db3e594dda35469ccb3778a60e09cb0f5b763</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-6552-1614 ; 0000-0002-6297-6012 ; 0000-0002-5219-0542</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2581208744/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2581208744?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,11562,25753,27924,27925,37012,37013,44590,46052,46476,53791,53793,74998</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34692999$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Çengel Kurnaz, Senem</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tahir, Emel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kavaz, Esra</creatorcontrib><title>Olfactory dysfunction in passive vs active smoking</title><title>Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology</title><addtitle>Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol</addtitle><description>Background The aim of this study is to assess the olfactory functions of passive smokers compared to active smokers and nonsmokers. Methods This prospective case‐control study included 30 nonsmokers, 30 passive smokers, and 30 active smoker participants. All groups were matched for gender and age. The Sino‐Nasal Outcome Test 22 (SNOT‐22) and Sniffin' Sticks test battery were administered to all subjects. Threshold (T), discrimination (D), and identification (I) scores were noted. Olfactory function was subjectively assessed as 0: severe dysfunction and 5: no problem. Results Overall, TDI scores of active smokers (24.78 ± 3.02) and passive smokers (24.90 ± 2.45) were significantly lower than nonsmokers (34.23 ± 3.46). There was no statistically significant difference between passive smokers and smokers (F(2,87) = 13.47, P &lt; .001)). All subscores are negatively affected by active or passive smoking. The greatest impact of smoking was on threshold scores (η2T = 0.719), followed by identification (η2I = 0.353) and discrimination (η2D = 0.282) scores. SNOT‐22 and TDI scores were weakly (r = −.352) correlated as subjective assessment, and TDI scores were moderately correlated (r: .539) (P values &lt; .001). Age and pack‐years cigarette dosage had a negative effect on the TDI score (TDI = 26.386 − (0.084 × age) − (0.072 × Pack.Year)) according to stepwise linear regression model (F = 10.187; P = .001). Conclusions Passive smoking has nearly the same adverse effect on olfactory function as active smoking. The threshold scores are the most negatively affected. The olfactory effect of cigarette smoke may not be directly related to nasal inflammation. Olfactory neuronal pathways should be investigated to elucidate the exact pathophysiology. Level of Evidence 3b.</description><subject>Age</subject><subject>Allergy, Rhinology, and Immunology</subject><subject>Cigarettes</subject><subject>Olfaction disorders</subject><subject>Original Research</subject><subject>Regression analysis</subject><subject>secondhand smoking</subject><subject>smell</subject><subject>Smoking</subject><subject>Tobacco smoke</subject><subject>Womens health</subject><issn>2378-8038</issn><issn>2378-8038</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kUuLFDEYRYMozjAO-AukwI2bGr-8k40gg4-Ght7oOqSSVJu2utImVS39703Z4zgjuMolORwuuQi9xHCDAcjbISZyIyR-gi4JlapVQNXTB_kCXZeyAwAsiBAKnqMLyoQmWutLRDZDb92U8qnxp9LPo5tiGps4NgdbSjyG5liaCiyp7NP3OG5foGe9HUq4vjuv0NePH77cfm7Xm0-r2_fr1nGJcesxFcQzDdwF5XuNdUdqtjo45jsauGbeW8prFec6KqWyAgJo10HPOynoFVqdvT7ZnTnkuLf5ZJKN5vdFyltj8xTdEIyUWgbo-l45zIIEKwkOjDLWSQeS0up6d3Yd5m4fvAvjlO3wSPr4ZYzfzDYdjeKYMi6r4M2dIKcfcyiT2cfiwjDYMaS5GMIV14QLvPR-_Q-6S3Me61ctFCagJGN_hS6nUnLo78tgMMuuZtnV1F0r-uph-Xvwz4oVaM_AzziE039FZr3akEX4C1uiqv8</recordid><startdate>202110</startdate><enddate>202110</enddate><creator>Çengel Kurnaz, Senem</creator><creator>Tahir, Emel</creator><creator>Kavaz, Esra</creator><general>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</general><general>Wiley</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6552-1614</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6297-6012</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5219-0542</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202110</creationdate><title>Olfactory dysfunction in passive vs active smoking</title><author>Çengel Kurnaz, Senem ; Tahir, Emel ; Kavaz, Esra</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5711-d1362d4905ce8df919b205ca9ec4db3e594dda35469ccb3778a60e09cb0f5b763</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Age</topic><topic>Allergy, Rhinology, and Immunology</topic><topic>Cigarettes</topic><topic>Olfaction disorders</topic><topic>Original Research</topic><topic>Regression analysis</topic><topic>secondhand smoking</topic><topic>smell</topic><topic>Smoking</topic><topic>Tobacco smoke</topic><topic>Womens health</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Çengel Kurnaz, Senem</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tahir, Emel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kavaz, Esra</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library Open Access</collection><collection>Wiley-Blackwell Open Access Backfiles (Open Access)</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Çengel Kurnaz, Senem</au><au>Tahir, Emel</au><au>Kavaz, Esra</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Olfactory dysfunction in passive vs active smoking</atitle><jtitle>Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology</jtitle><addtitle>Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol</addtitle><date>2021-10</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>6</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>932</spage><epage>939</epage><pages>932-939</pages><issn>2378-8038</issn><eissn>2378-8038</eissn><abstract>Background The aim of this study is to assess the olfactory functions of passive smokers compared to active smokers and nonsmokers. Methods This prospective case‐control study included 30 nonsmokers, 30 passive smokers, and 30 active smoker participants. All groups were matched for gender and age. The Sino‐Nasal Outcome Test 22 (SNOT‐22) and Sniffin' Sticks test battery were administered to all subjects. Threshold (T), discrimination (D), and identification (I) scores were noted. Olfactory function was subjectively assessed as 0: severe dysfunction and 5: no problem. Results Overall, TDI scores of active smokers (24.78 ± 3.02) and passive smokers (24.90 ± 2.45) were significantly lower than nonsmokers (34.23 ± 3.46). There was no statistically significant difference between passive smokers and smokers (F(2,87) = 13.47, P &lt; .001)). All subscores are negatively affected by active or passive smoking. The greatest impact of smoking was on threshold scores (η2T = 0.719), followed by identification (η2I = 0.353) and discrimination (η2D = 0.282) scores. SNOT‐22 and TDI scores were weakly (r = −.352) correlated as subjective assessment, and TDI scores were moderately correlated (r: .539) (P values &lt; .001). Age and pack‐years cigarette dosage had a negative effect on the TDI score (TDI = 26.386 − (0.084 × age) − (0.072 × Pack.Year)) according to stepwise linear regression model (F = 10.187; P = .001). Conclusions Passive smoking has nearly the same adverse effect on olfactory function as active smoking. The threshold scores are the most negatively affected. The olfactory effect of cigarette smoke may not be directly related to nasal inflammation. Olfactory neuronal pathways should be investigated to elucidate the exact pathophysiology. Level of Evidence 3b.</abstract><cop>Hoboken, USA</cop><pub>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</pub><pmid>34692999</pmid><doi>10.1002/lio2.671</doi><tpages>8</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6552-1614</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6297-6012</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5219-0542</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2378-8038
ispartof Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 2021-10, Vol.6 (5), p.932-939
issn 2378-8038
2378-8038
language eng
recordid cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_7797e0bff8c14e70a721e4344b7c0733
source Wiley Online Library Open Access; Publicly Available Content Database; PubMed Central
subjects Age
Allergy, Rhinology, and Immunology
Cigarettes
Olfaction disorders
Original Research
Regression analysis
secondhand smoking
smell
Smoking
Tobacco smoke
Womens health
title Olfactory dysfunction in passive vs active smoking
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-08T04%3A01%3A11IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_doaj_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Olfactory%20dysfunction%20in%20passive%20vs%20active%20smoking&rft.jtitle=Laryngoscope%20investigative%20otolaryngology&rft.au=%C3%87engel%20Kurnaz,%20Senem&rft.date=2021-10&rft.volume=6&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=932&rft.epage=939&rft.pages=932-939&rft.issn=2378-8038&rft.eissn=2378-8038&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/lio2.671&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_doaj_%3E2585925616%3C/proquest_doaj_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5711-d1362d4905ce8df919b205ca9ec4db3e594dda35469ccb3778a60e09cb0f5b763%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2581208744&rft_id=info:pmid/34692999&rfr_iscdi=true