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 74 out of 100. Risk factors

Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology

Objective To examine the association between odor identification deficits and future mortality in a multiethnic community cohort of older adults. Methods Participants were evaluated with the 40-item University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT). Follow-up occurred at 2-year intervals with information on death obtained from informant interviews and the National Death Index. Results During follow-up (mean = 4.1 years, standard deviation = 2.6), 349 of 1,169 (29.9%) participants died. Participants who died were more likely to be older (p < 0.001), be male (p < 0.001), have lower UPSIT scores (p < 0.001), and have a diagnosis of dementia (p < 0.001). In a Cox model, the association between lower UPSIT score and mortality (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.07 per point interval, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.05-1.08, p < 0.001) persisted after controlling for age, gender, education, ethnicity, language, modified Charlson medical comorbidity index, dementia, depression, alcohol abuse, head injury, smoking, body mass index, and vision and hearing impairment (HR = 1.05, 95% CI = 1.03-1.07, p < 0.001). Compared to the fourth quartile with the highest UPSIT scores, HRs for mortality for the first, second, and third quartiles of UPSIT scores were 3.81 (95% CI = 2.71-5.34), 1.75 (95% CI = 1.23-2.50), and 1.58 (95% CI = 1.09-2.30), respectively. Participant mortality rate was 45% in the lowest quartile of UPSIT scores (anosmia) and 18% in the highest quartile of UPSIT scores. Interpretation Impaired odor identification, particularly in the anosmic range, is associated with increased mortality in older adults even after controlling for dementia and medical comorbidity.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 74/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 9 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 11 of 12; Strength of evidence 3 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 3 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 1 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. 43 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 74 of 100. Total 74 of 100.43 of the 58 points we could judge = 74 of 100

Published in a leading specialty journal, and it is a randomised controlled trial. Scored zero for sample size 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 43 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 74 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 9 / 10 Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Annals of neurology)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 11 / 12 A randomised controlled trial (from PubMed type “Randomized Controlled Trial”)
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 2015 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 0 / 4 Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported 3 / 3 Effect reported with a statistic (interval, p-value, ratio or similar)
Studied in people 3 / 3 Studied in people (pubmed indexes it as a clinical or observational study)
Randomised / blinded 1 / 2 Randomised (as stated in the record)
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 26031760)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 43 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 43 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 74 out of 100.
Total 74 / 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.

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

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Devanand, D. P., Lee, S., Manly, J., Andrews, H., Schupf, N., Masurkar, A., et al. (2015). Olfactory identification deficits and increased mortality in the community. Annals of neurology. https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.24447

Vancouver

Devanand DP, Lee S, Manly J, Andrews H, Schupf N, Masurkar A, et al. Olfactory identification deficits and increased mortality in the community. Annals of neurology. 2015. doi:10.1002/ana.24447. PMID: 26031760.

BibTeX

@article{devanand2015-26031760,
  author  = {Devanand, D. P. and Lee, S. and Manly, J. and Andrews, H. and Schupf, N. and Masurkar, A. and Stern, Y. and Mayeux, R. and others},
  title   = {{Olfactory identification deficits and increased mortality in the community}},
  journal = {Annals of neurology},
  year    = {2015},
  doi     = {10.1002/ana.24447},
  pmid    = {26031760},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.24447}
}

Related studies in Risk factors

Also tagged “hearing”

118 studies in the library carry the topic tag “hearing”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 118 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Risk factors

See all studies in Risk factors →