Moura Gabrielly Oliveira Cunha, da Silva Anthony Lucas Santos, de Santana Fábio Rafael Teixeira, Walker Cristiani Isabel Banderó
Neuropharmacological Studies Laboratory, Post-Graduate Program in Pharmaceutical Sciences, Federal University of Sergipe, Sergipe, Brazil.
Neuropharmacological Studies Laboratory, Department of Pharmacy, Federal University of Sergipe, Sergipe, Brazil.
Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2025 Apr;15(4):428-437. doi: 10.1002/alr.23564. Epub 2025 Mar 19.
Olfactory dysfunction is commonly treated with olfactory training, but there is a lack of standardization in its methods, leading to inconclusive results about its effectiveness. This systematic review aims to investigate the effectiveness of classical olfactory training in the treatment of olfactory dysfunction compared to modified training or no-intervention control groups.
This systematic literature review follows the PRISMA protocol and is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022357528). The databases used for the search were PubMed MEDLINE, LILACS, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase. Randomized clinical trials carried out in adults with olfactory disorders and published in all languages until December 2023 were included. The quality assessment of these studies was conducted using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.
A total of eight studies, involving 896 participants with olfactory dysfunction, were included in the analysis. Overall, these studies showed that classical olfactory training produces improvements in at least 20%-30% in olfactory function in patients affected by different etiologies of smell loss, with all of them reporting clinically significant post-treatment results.
Classical olfactory training can be a promising intervention for the recovery of olfactory function in individuals with olfactory dysfunction. However, olfactory training should not be seen as a universal solution for anosmia, given the variability of results.
嗅觉功能障碍通常采用嗅觉训练进行治疗,但其方法缺乏标准化,导致其有效性的结果尚无定论。本系统评价旨在研究与改良训练或无干预对照组相比,经典嗅觉训练治疗嗅觉功能障碍的有效性。
本系统文献综述遵循PRISMA协议,并在PROSPERO(CRD42022357528)注册。用于检索的数据库有PubMed MEDLINE、LILACS、Scopus、Web of Science和Embase。纳入了截至2023年12月以所有语言发表的针对嗅觉障碍成年人开展的随机临床试验。使用Cochrane偏倚风险工具对这些研究进行质量评估。
共有八项研究纳入分析,涉及896名嗅觉功能障碍患者。总体而言,这些研究表明,经典嗅觉训练可使因不同嗅觉丧失病因而受影响的患者的嗅觉功能至少提高20%-30%,所有研究均报告了治疗后的临床显著结果。
经典嗅觉训练对于嗅觉功能障碍患者的嗅觉功能恢复可能是一种有前景的干预措施。然而,鉴于结果的变异性,嗅觉训练不应被视为嗅觉丧失的通用解决方案。