Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: To compare, using state-of-the-art psychophysical tests, the olfactory function of patients complaining and not complaining of olfactory hypersensitivity.
METHODS: Retrospective cross-sectional.
METHODS: The Smell and Taste Center at the University of Pennsylvania.
METHODS: University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) scores were obtained from 148 patients complaining of hyperosmia and 494 patients with no such complaints; detection threshold test scores were obtained from 77 and 483 patients of these respective groups. The effects of subject group, age, and sex on the test scores were assessed using analyses of variance. Categorical variables were evaluated by χ2. Responses to items within a detailed intake questionnaire, for example, the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II), were also evaluated.
RESULTS: Unexpectedly, those complaining of hyperosmia had lower olfactory test scores than those with no such complaints (respective UPSIT means [95% confidence interval [CIs]] = 27.86 (26.85, 28.87) and 32.19 (31.67, 32.71); P < .001; respective threshold means (log vol/vol) = -4.49 (-4.89, -4.09) and -5.22 (-5.36, -5.06); P < .001). Remarkably, 70.95% of the self-identified hyperosmics exhibited mild to severe microsmia. The hyposmia complainers also exhibited elevated BDI scores (11.02 [9.53, 12.51] vs 7.58 [6.80, 8.34]).
CONCLUSIONS: When objectively tested, many patients who complain of hypersensitivity to odors are actually less sensitive to them. The basis of this phenomenon is unclear. It could reflect the presence of emotionally disturbing altered smell sensations, or one or more comorbidities, such as hypochondria or osmophobia. These findings point to the importance of objective testing of persons with complaints of chemosensory dysfunction and reiterate the inaccuracy of self-reports.
METHODS: Retrospective cross-sectional.
METHODS: The Smell and Taste Center at the University of Pennsylvania.
METHODS: University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) scores were obtained from 148 patients complaining of hyperosmia and 494 patients with no such complaints; detection threshold test scores were obtained from 77 and 483 patients of these respective groups. The effects of subject group, age, and sex on the test scores were assessed using analyses of variance. Categorical variables were evaluated by χ2. Responses to items within a detailed intake questionnaire, for example, the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II), were also evaluated.
RESULTS: Unexpectedly, those complaining of hyperosmia had lower olfactory test scores than those with no such complaints (respective UPSIT means [95% confidence interval [CIs]] = 27.86 (26.85, 28.87) and 32.19 (31.67, 32.71); P < .001; respective threshold means (log vol/vol) = -4.49 (-4.89, -4.09) and -5.22 (-5.36, -5.06); P < .001). Remarkably, 70.95% of the self-identified hyperosmics exhibited mild to severe microsmia. The hyposmia complainers also exhibited elevated BDI scores (11.02 [9.53, 12.51] vs 7.58 [6.80, 8.34]).
CONCLUSIONS: When objectively tested, many patients who complain of hypersensitivity to odors are actually less sensitive to them. The basis of this phenomenon is unclear. It could reflect the presence of emotionally disturbing altered smell sensations, or one or more comorbidities, such as hypochondria or osmophobia. These findings point to the importance of objective testing of persons with complaints of chemosensory dysfunction and reiterate the inaccuracy of self-reports.
摘要：
目的：比较，使用最先进的心理物理测试，抱怨和不抱怨嗅觉过敏的患者的嗅觉功能。
方法：回顾性横断面。
方法：宾夕法尼亚大学的气味和味道中心。
方法：宾夕法尼亚大学嗅觉识别测试（UPSIT）评分从148例患者和494例无此类疾病的患者中获得；检测阈值测试评分分别来自这些组的77和483例患者。主题组的影响，年龄,和性别在测试成绩上使用方差分析进行评估。分类变量采用χ2进行评价。对详细入学问卷中项目的回应，例如,贝克抑郁量表(BDI-II)，也进行了评估。
结果：出乎意料的是，抱怨高血症者的嗅觉测试评分低于没有抱怨者（各自的UPSIT均值[95%置信区间[CI]]=27.86（26.85，28.87）和32.19（31.67，32.71）；P<.001；各自的阈值均值（logvol/vol）=-4.49（-4.89，-4.09）和-5.22（-5.36，-5.06）；P<.001）值得注意的是,70.95％的自我鉴定的高渗透压表现出轻度至重度的微粒体。低表达者也表现出升高的BDI评分(11.02[9.53,12.51]vs7.58[6.80,8.34])。
结论：当客观测试时，许多抱怨对气味过敏的患者实际上对气味不太敏感。这种现象的基础尚不清楚。它可以反映出情绪上令人不安的嗅觉改变的存在，或一种或多种合并症，如软骨病或恐惧症。这些发现指出了对患有化学感觉功能障碍的人进行客观测试的重要性，并重申了自我报告的不准确性。
方法：回顾性横断面。
方法：宾夕法尼亚大学的气味和味道中心。
方法：宾夕法尼亚大学嗅觉识别测试（UPSIT）评分从148例患者和494例无此类疾病的患者中获得；检测阈值测试评分分别来自这些组的77和483例患者。主题组的影响，年龄,和性别在测试成绩上使用方差分析进行评估。分类变量采用χ2进行评价。对详细入学问卷中项目的回应，例如,贝克抑郁量表(BDI-II)，也进行了评估。
结果：出乎意料的是，抱怨高血症者的嗅觉测试评分低于没有抱怨者（各自的UPSIT均值[95%置信区间[CI]]=27.86（26.85，28.87）和32.19（31.67，32.71）；P<.001；各自的阈值均值（logvol/vol）=-4.49（-4.89，-4.09）和-5.22（-5.36，-5.06）；P<.001）值得注意的是,70.95％的自我鉴定的高渗透压表现出轻度至重度的微粒体。低表达者也表现出升高的BDI评分(11.02[9.53,12.51]vs7.58[6.80,8.34])。
结论：当客观测试时，许多抱怨对气味过敏的患者实际上对气味不太敏感。这种现象的基础尚不清楚。它可以反映出情绪上令人不安的嗅觉改变的存在，或一种或多种合并症，如软骨病或恐惧症。这些发现指出了对患有化学感觉功能障碍的人进行客观测试的重要性，并重申了自我报告的不准确性。
