Taste loss as a distinct symptom of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Abstract Chemosensory scientists have been skeptical that reports of COVID-19 taste loss are genuine, in part because before COVID-19, taste loss was rare and often confused with smell loss. Therefore, to establish the predicted prevalence rate of taste loss in COVID-19 patients, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 376 papers published in 2020–2021, with 241 meeting all inclusion criteria. Additionally, we explored how methodological differences (direct vs. self-report measures) may affect these estimates. We hypothesized that direct prevalence measures of taste loss would be the most valid because they avoid the taste/smell confusion of self-report. The meta-analysis showed that, among 138,897 COVID-19-positive patients, 39.2% reported taste dysfunction (95% CI: 35.34–43.12%), and the prevalence estimates were slightly but not significantly higher from studies using direct (n = 18) versus self-report (n = 223) methodologies (Q = 0.57, df = 1, p = 0.45). Generally, males reported lower rates of taste loss than did females and taste loss was highest in middle-aged groups. Thus, taste loss is a bona fide symptom COVID-19, meriting further research into the most appropriate direct methods to measure it and its underlying mechanisms..
| Medienart: |
|
|---|
Preprint| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2023 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2023 |
| Enthalten in: |
bioRxiv.org - (2023) vom: 10. Nov. Zur Gesamtaufnahme - year:2023 |
|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Hannum, Mackenzie E. [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1101/2021.10.09.21264771 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
XBI03275504X |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | XBI03275504X | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231205150305.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 211011s2023 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1101/2021.10.09.21264771 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)XBI03275504X | ||
| 035 | |a (biorXiv)10.1101/2021.10.09.21264771 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Hannum, Mackenzie E. |e verfasserin |0 (orcid)0000-0002-2008-5799 |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Taste loss as a distinct symptom of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2023 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a Abstract Chemosensory scientists have been skeptical that reports of COVID-19 taste loss are genuine, in part because before COVID-19, taste loss was rare and often confused with smell loss. Therefore, to establish the predicted prevalence rate of taste loss in COVID-19 patients, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 376 papers published in 2020–2021, with 241 meeting all inclusion criteria. Additionally, we explored how methodological differences (direct vs. self-report measures) may affect these estimates. We hypothesized that direct prevalence measures of taste loss would be the most valid because they avoid the taste/smell confusion of self-report. The meta-analysis showed that, among 138,897 COVID-19-positive patients, 39.2% reported taste dysfunction (95% CI: 35.34–43.12%), and the prevalence estimates were slightly but not significantly higher from studies using direct (n = 18) versus self-report (n = 223) methodologies (Q = 0.57, df = 1, p = 0.45). Generally, males reported lower rates of taste loss than did females and taste loss was highest in middle-aged groups. Thus, taste loss is a bona fide symptom COVID-19, meriting further research into the most appropriate direct methods to measure it and its underlying mechanisms. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Biology |7 (dpeaa)DE-84 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a 570 |7 (dpeaa)DE-84 | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Koch, Riley J. |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Ramirez, Vicente A. |0 (orcid)0000-0001-5005-745X |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Marks, Sarah S. |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Toskala, Aurora K. |0 (orcid)0000-0003-4608-9947 |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Herriman, Riley D. |0 (orcid)0000-0003-4056-038X |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Lin, Cailu |0 (orcid)0000-0001-8909-7758 |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Joseph, Paule V. |0 (orcid)0000-0002-1198-9622 |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Reed, Danielle R. |0 (orcid)0000-0002-4374-6107 |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t bioRxiv.org |g (2023) vom: 10. Nov. |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g year:2023 |g day:10 |g month:11 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/bjac001 |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/2021.10.09.21264771 |z kostenfrei |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_XBI | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |j 2023 |b 10 |c 11 | ||