↓ Skip to main content

Olfactory Functioning and Depression: A Systematic Review

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychiatry, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
63 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
103 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Olfactory Functioning and Depression: A Systematic Review
Published in
Frontiers in Psychiatry, September 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyt.2017.00190
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hannah Taalman, Caroline Wallace, Roumen Milev

Abstract

Research has demonstrated a reduction in olfactory functioning in patients with schizophrenia. This research has led to examination of olfactory functioning in other mental disorders, such as depression. There is a great deal of variation in the results generated from such research, and it remains unclear as to how olfactory functioning is associated with or impacted by depression. The current review examined the literature in accordance with PRISMA guidelines in order to generate a better understanding of this relationship and to identify if and what aspects of olfactory processing are altered. Through examination of the available literature from the databases PubMed, Ovid Medline, CINAL, and PsychINFO, 15 manuscripts were selected to determine if there was a difference in olfactory processing-specifically central and peripheral processing-between depressed individuals and non-depressed controls. The comparison of the 15 studies showed that the majority of studies (9/15, 60%) found a difference in overall olfactory functioning between depressed individuals and non-depressed controls (p < 0.05). There is still a lack of definitive conclusions due to variation of which olfactory process was altered. Given the differences in the methodology and design of these studies, a possible solution that could eliminate the lack of clarity and reduce variation would be to adhere to a single, thorough methodology that examines and separates central and peripheral olfactory processing. Future research employing a uniform and validated methodology could provide more definitive conclusions as to how and if olfactory functioning is related depression.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 103 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 13%
Researcher 12 12%
Student > Bachelor 11 11%
Student > Master 8 8%
Student > Postgraduate 5 5%
Other 20 19%
Unknown 34 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 14 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 8%
Psychology 7 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 5%
Other 14 14%
Unknown 41 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 June 2023.
All research outputs
#2,982,968
of 26,160,558 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#1,795
of 13,010 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,829
of 332,913 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#22
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,160,558 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,010 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,913 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 86 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.