Validation of Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) for University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT)

Abstract

Background

The University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test is widely used to measure change in olfactory function, but a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) has not been well-established. A study published in 1997 regarding patients with head trauma reported an MCID of 4 but did not detail the methods used in the calculation.

Objective

To validate the MCID for UPSIT in patients with postviral, sinusitis, and procedure-associated olfactory loss.

Methods

This was a secondary analysis of prospectively collected data from 5 clinical research studies related to olfactory function. Three studies included subjects with COVID-19-related olfactory dysfunction, one with chronic sinusitis subjects, and one with subjects undergoing transsphenoidal surgery. All subjects had completed a baseline and follow-up UPSIT, baseline and follow-up Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-Severity), and a follow-up CGI-Improvement. Both distribution- and anchor-based methods were used to determine the MCID of UPSIT. Distribution-based method calculated MCID using half standard deviation of baseline UPSIT and delta UPSIT scores. Clinical-anchor method determined MCID by comparing delta UPSIT scores between consecutive CGI-I clinical categories ranging from very much better to very much worse.

Results

The study population comprised 295 subjects. Subjects had a mean (SD) baseline UPSIT score of 27 (7.5), and follow-up score of 28 (7.9), and a mean UPSIT change of 0.6 (5.8). Half the baseline UPSIT SD was 3.75 and half the delta UPSIT SD was 2.9. With the anchor-based approach, an MCID of 4 was defined as clinically meaningful by exploring the relationship between delta UPSIT and CGI-Improvement. Using a more conservative approach based on the MCID values identified from both methods, we determined that a change of 4 or greater is the appropriate MCID for UPSIT.

Conclusion

Investigators in the future should use 4 as MCID for UPSIT and report the percentage of study subjects who achieve a clinically meaningful difference.

Level of Evidence

III.

Keywords

MCID UPSIT clinically important difference clinically meaningful change smell identification

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. n.d. Quick statistics about taste and Smell. National Institute of Deafness and Other Communication Disorders. Accessed March 2, 2022. https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/statistics/quick-statistics-taste-smell

Lechien

Chiesa-Estomba

De Siati

, et al. Olfactory and gustatory dysfunctions as a clinical presentation of mild-to-moderate forms of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19): a multicenter European study. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2020;277(8):2251-2261.

Doty

. Olfactory capacities in aging and Alzheimer's disease. Psychophysical and anatomic considerations. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1991;640:20-27.

Nordin

Monsch

Murphy

. Unawareness of smell loss in normal aging and Alzheimer's disease: discrepancy between self-reported and diagnosed smell sensitivity. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 1995;50(4):P187-P192.

Doty

Shaman

Kimmelman

Dann

. University of Pennsylvania smell identification test: a rapid quantitative olfactory function test for the clinic. Laryngoscope. 1984;94(2 pt 1):176-178.

Ottaviano

Frasson

Nardello

Martini

. Olfaction deterioration in cognitive disorders in the elderly. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2016;28(1):37-45.

Saltagi

Nag

, et al. Diagnosis of anosmia and hyposmia: a systematic review. Allergy Rhinol (Providence). 2021;12:21526567211026568.

Doty

. Olfactory capacities in aging and Alzheimer's disease. Psychophysical and anatomic considerations. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1991;640:20-27.

Kern

Quinn

Rosseau

Farbman

. Post-traumatic olfactory dysfunction. Laryngoscope. 2000;110(12):2106-2109.

10.

Kallogjeri

Spitznagel Jr

Piccirillo

. Importance of defining and interpreting a clinically meaningful difference in clinical research. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2020;146(2):101-102.

11.

Doty

Yousem

Pham

Kreshak

Geckle

Lee

. Olfactory dysfunction in patients with head trauma. Arch Neurol. 1997;54(9):1131-1140.

12.

Doty

. 1995. The smell identification test: Administration manual. Sensonics, Inc .

13.

Busner

Targum

. The clinical global impressions scale: applying a research tool in clinical practice. Psychiatry (Edgmont). 2007;4(7):28-37.

14.

Cohen

. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers; 1988.

15.

Philpott

Wolstenholme

Goodenough

, et al. Comparison of subjective perception with objective measurement of olfaction. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2006;134(3):488-490.

16.

Knaapila

Raittola

Sandell

Yang

. Self-ratings of olfactory performance and odor annoyance are associated with the affective impact of odor, but not with smell test results. Perception. 2017;46(3-4):352-365.

17.

Wasserstein RLL, N.A. The ASA's statement on p-values: context, process, and purpose. Am Stat. 2016;70(2):129-133.

18.

Piccirillo

. Improving the quality of the reporting of research results. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016;142(10):937-938.

19.

Montori

Kleinbart

Newman

, et al. Tips for learners of evidence-based medicine: 2. Measures of precision (confidence intervals). CMAJ. 2004;171(6):611-615.

20.

Kallogjeri

Francis

Piccirillo

. Use of confidence intervals to improve the quality of research results reporting and interpretation. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2019;145.6:491-493.