Olfactory Dysfunction in Neurodevelopmental Disorders: A Meta-analytic Review of Autism Spectrum Disorders, Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder.
Andrew J D Crow, Jennica M Janssen, Kayci L Vickers and 3 others
PMID 31960263WHAT IT FOUND
Olfactory dysfunction is evident in autism and OCD, but not ADHD.
Odor identification is the most impaired domain across all three conditions. Deficits are larger in younger males with lower IQ or more severe symptoms.
Key findings
01Individuals with ASD and OCD showed significant olfactory deficits compared to typically developing peers, while those with ADHD did not.
02Odor identification was significantly more impaired than detection, discrimination, hedonics, and intensity ratings across the combined sample.
03OCD participants showed significant deficits in odor hedonic ratings, identification, and discrimination, but not in intensity or detection.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The meta-analysis included studies using different performance measures of olfactory function, which may reduce the precision of the synthesis. Many included studies recruited participants from outpatient clinics rather than community samples, potentially inflating the observed effect sizes. There were few effect sizes available for ADHD and for specific domains like odor intensity and hedonics, making these findings tentative. Moderator analyses relied on studies that reported relevant data (e.g., IQ, medication status), which was not available for all included studies. Publication bias was detected in the ADHD and OCD subgroups (significant Egger tests), though trim-and-fill adjustments were applied.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that ADHD is unrelated to olfactory dysfunction. While the primary analysis showed no significant deficit (d = -0.12), the authors detected publication bias and, after adjusting for it, found a moderate effect size (d = -0.40) that approached significance.