Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Digital SMELL-RS Test Shows Reliability and Correlation with Sniffin' Sticks in Olfactory Dysfunction

Digital SMELL-RS Test Shows Reliability and Correlation with Sniffin' Sticks in Olfactory Dysfunctio…
Photo by Justin Morgan / Unsplash
Key Takeaway
Consider the digital SMELL-RS a rapid, reliable tool for olfactory screening that correlates with Sniffin' Sticks.

A test-retest reliability study evaluated a self-administered, digital olfactory test (SMELL-RS) in 100 subjects with and without smell dysfunction at a tertiary care facility. The test's composite score demonstrated good test-retest reliability (ICC=0.71, p<0.0001) and correlated with the established Sniffin' Sticks composite score (r=0.68, p<0.0001). The SMELL-R component took an average of 5.9 minutes (SD=1.9) to complete, while the SMELL-S component took 5.5 minutes (SD=2.7). The study reported these times as two to three times faster than Sniffin' Sticks tests.

Safety and tolerability data were not reported. The study's key limitations were not explicitly detailed in the provided information, but the design as a reliability study means it does not establish diagnostic accuracy or clinical utility compared to a gold standard. The sample was drawn from a single tertiary care setting.

For practice, this study provides initial evidence that the SMELL-RS is a rapid, automated test with reliable scores that correlate with a standard measure. However, its role in clinical diagnosis or monitoring remains to be defined by studies assessing sensitivity, specificity, and performance across diverse populations and etiologies of olfactory loss.

Study Details

Sample sizen = 100
EvidenceLevel 5
PublishedMar 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
Background: Smell testing is increasingly recognized as essential in rhinology practice but remains underutilized because of time constraints and limited clinical resources. This study aimed to evaluate the performance (test-retest reliability, accuracy and test completion time) of a self-administered, digital version of SMELL-RS, a non-semantic test of olfactory resolution (SMELL-R) and sensitivity (SMELL-S). Methodology: We performed a test-retest reliability study in a tertiary care facility. We enrolled 100 subjects with and without smell dysfunction. The primary outcome measures were two replicates of olfactory test scores (SMELL-RS composite score, SMELL-R score, SMELL-S score). The secondary outcome measures were Sniffin Sticks score, test completion time, patient demographics, and other clinical characteristics (clinical symptoms, etiologies). Results: The SMELL-RS composite score was reliable (ICC=0.71; p<0.0001) and correlated with the Sniffin Sticks composite score (r=0.68; p<0.0001). Different etiologies have different magnitudes of smell loss as revealed by the SMELL-RS score. SMELL-S reduces misdiagnosis associated with Sniffin Sticks threshold tests. The average completion time of the olfactory resolution test (SMELL-R) was on average 5.9 minutes (SD=1.9), while the average completion time of the olfactory sensitivity test (SMELL-S) was 5.5 minutes (SD=2.7). This is two to three times faster than the corresponding Sniffin Sticks tests. Conclusions: SMELL-RS is a rapid, fully automated, reliable, and accurate olfactory test suitable for self-administration in a clinical setting.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.