Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Prevention and risk

Topic: Air pollution and environmental exposures

To explore the nature of the olfactory dysfunction associated with Parkinson's disease (PD), 81 PD patients who scored well on a cognitive screening test were administered the 40-odorant University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test; 38 were additionally given a forced-choice phenylethyl alcohol odor detection threshold test. Clinical ratings of 11 neurologic symptoms (three bilateral) were obtained at the time of testing, and odor identification was retested in 24 patients at intervals ranging from 5 to 39 months. Relative to matched controls, the PD patients exhibited consistent and marked decrements on both types of olfactory tests (ps less than 0.0001). The odor identification deficit was not restricted to any subset of odorants and did not evidence longitudinal change. A factor analysis of the intercorrelations among the variables yielded six easily interpretable factors: general motor, oral motor, olfactory function, cognitive function, tremor, and gender. Olfactory test scores were independent of all other measures, including disease stage and duration. Seventy-two percent of the PD patients were unaware of a smell disorder before testing; those who were aware had significantly lower test scores. A statistical comparison of PD patients' olfactory test scores to those obtained from Alzheimer's disease patients found the olfactory disorders of these diseases to be indistinguishable. The data support the hypothesis that the olfactory deficit of PD is a general and stable one which likely occurs early in the disease process.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Doty, R. L., Deems, D. A., & Stellar, S. (1988). Olfactory dysfunction in parkinsonism: a general deficit unrelated to neurologic signs, disease stage, or disease duration. Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.38.8.1237

Vancouver

Doty RL, Deems DA, Stellar S. Olfactory dysfunction in parkinsonism: a general deficit unrelated to neurologic signs, disease stage, or disease duration. Neurology. 1988. doi:10.1212/wnl.38.8.1237. PMID: 3399075.

BibTeX

@article{doty1988-3399075,
  author  = {Doty, R. L. and Deems, D. A. and Stellar, S.},
  title   = {{Olfactory dysfunction in parkinsonism: a general deficit unrelated to neurologic signs, disease stage, or disease duration}},
  journal = {Neurology},
  year    = {1988},
  doi     = {10.1212/wnl.38.8.1237},
  pmid    = {3399075},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.38.8.1237}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 62/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 9 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 7 of 12; Strength of evidence 3 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 1 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 36 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 62 of 100. Total 62 of 100.36 of the 58 points we could judge = 62 of 100

Published in a leading specialty journal, and it is a longitudinal study following the same people over time. Scored zero for effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 36 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 62 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 9 / 10 Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Neurology)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 7 / 12 A longitudinal study following the same people over time
Strength of evidence 3 / 5 Rated “moderate” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 1 / 5 1988 — older than 20 years, still counted
Sample size 1 / 4 24 participants
Effect reported 0 / 3 No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people 3 / 3 Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited — / 7 No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year — / 5 No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year — / 6 No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here — / 6 Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited — / 4 No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record — / 4 Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record — / 3 No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multi-centre collaboration — / 3 Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 3399075)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 36 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 36 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 62 out of 100.
Total 62 / 100 —

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Related studies in Prevention and risk

Also in Prevention and risk

265 studies in the library are filed under Prevention and risk with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Prevention and risk hub.

Similar studies

More on Prevention and risk

See all studies in Prevention and risk →