METHODS: A search of the literature published from 1 December 2019 to 30 April 2021 was conducted using four databases, based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The search was performed over one month (May 2021).
RESULTS: Only 9 articles were identified, with a total of 316 laboratory confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 positive children and adolescents, of whom 156 reported olfactory dysfunction. Four studies reported olfactory dysfunction based on subjective tests; four studies carried out objective assessment. Most studies reported on olfaction recovery.
CONCLUSION: The literature review revealed an olfactory dysfunction rate of 49 per cent amongst children and adolescents with coronavirus disease 2019. Persistence of olfactory dysfunction was reported in 7.1 per cent of the patients. Further studies involving objective measures need to be carried out in children and adolescents with coronavirus disease 2019.
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analyses.
METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and Google Scholar databases were searched to identify studies published between 1 December 2019 and 23 July 2020. We used random-effects model to estimate the pooled prevalence with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic and Cochran's Q test. Robustness of the pooled estimates was checked by different subgroup and sensitivity analyses This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020183768).
RESULTS: We identified 1162 studies, of which 83 studies (n = 27492, 61.4% female) were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, the pooled prevalence of olfactory dysfunction in COVID-19 patients was 47.85% [95% CI: 41.20-54.50]. We observed olfactory dysfunction in 54.40% European, 51.11% North American, 31.39% Asian, and 10.71% Australian COVID-19 patients. Anosmia, hyposmia, and dysosmia were observed in 35.39%, 36.15%, and 2.53% of the patients, respectively. There were discrepancies in the results of studies with objective (higher prevalence) versus subjective (lower prevalence) evaluations. The discrepancy might be due to false-negative reporting observed in self-reported health measures.
CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of olfactory dysfunction in COVID-19 patients was found to be 47.85% based on high-quality evidence. Due to the subjective measures of most studies pooled in the analysis, further studies with objective measures are advocated to confirm the finding.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 Laryngoscope, 131:865-878, 2021.