Talk:Smell training

Adding Citing Medical Sources

As was pointed out here, this article should be citing medical sources as much as possible. I hope we can get some folks who are knowledgeable in this area cite more medical articles.

Here are some of the most commonly cited articles according to Google scholar:

• Effects of olfactory training: a meta-analysis (lightly used in article) - 95 citations
• Olfactory training induces changes in regional functional connectivity in patients with long-term smell loss - 66 citations
• Recovery of Olfactory Function Induces Neuroplasticity Effects in Patients with Smell Loss - 66 citations

Here are other possible sources: https://scholar.archive.org/search?q=%22smell+training%22

Cheers, RayScript (talk) 04:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

May I suggest using this search instead? Google Scholar doesn't always provide WP:MEDRS quality sources. PubMed with meta analysis, review, systematic review, and MEDLINE ticked should provide 100% MEDRS sources. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey RayScript. Thanks for including me as a co-writer in the DYK nomination. I don't think I'll have time to work on this today, but if you want to work on it, I think we can fix this up and get it approved for DYK. 1) We should expand the article to six meaty paragraphs, then switch the rating on the talk page from stub class to start class. 2) The DYK nominator didn't mention this, but from my experience working on medical articles, this article needs some work to comply with WP:MEDRS. I think we should fix this before it hits the front page. The best way to do this is to go to PubMed, search for "smell training" or "olfactory training", and click the following 4 filters: review, systematic review, meta-analysis, MEDLINE. Then we should replace any non-medical journal sources or medical journal non-review article sources with these sources. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae:, I also don't think I'll be able to get this done in time for DKY. When I look at the articles following your search suggestion I'm really not sure like in them is worthwhile so bring back to the wikipedia article. They are mostly about the methodology and talk of the numbers. Do you have any suggestions for what topics these further paragraphs might cover? Additionally, do you have examples of wikipedia articles I may see as a good example? RayScript (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

RayScript, I'll try to work on this tonight or tomorrow. Examples of fully compliant MEDRS articles are biology featured articles, such as Virus or Introduction to viruses. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by MeegsC (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that smell training can help people regain a sense of smell?
  • ALT1:... that smell training can help people regain a sense of smell by regularly sniffing aromas?
    • ALT2:... that smell training can help people learn to smell again?
    • ALT3 ... that some people recovering from COVID-19 are trying smell training to cure their anosmia?
    • ALT4 ... that some people recovering from COVID-19 are trying smell training to cure their loss of smell?
    • ALT5 ... that smell training is being used to treat long-term loss of smell after COVID-19?

• Reviewed: I think I'm exempt... but I reviewed a DKY here anyway.
• Comment: This is my first DKY nomination. The source of the hook fact includes the first several citations.

Created by RayScript (talk) and Novem Linguae (talk). Nominated by RayScript (talk) at 22:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC).

• Starting review.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: The article is long enough and new enough, well sourced and free of plagiarism. The hooks are cited and interesting. A QPQ is not needed, so you can keep it for the future. The only problem is that the article is classified as stub, so it is not eligible for DYK. It needs further expansion. Alex2006 (talk) 06:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@RayScript, Novem Linguae, and Alessandro57: This is longer than stub length, and it (just barely) meets the length requirement, so it does not need further expansion. However, some content tags need to be resolved. Also, given that "there is not a wide consensus among doctors about its efficacy", I don't think that it's accurate for the hook to say it "can help people learn to smell again". Maybe it "might" help, but I'd like to see something more specific than that. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 05:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Miracle! I just saw that someone has removed the stub tag! :-) Could you please address the remarks of John? Alex2006 (talk) 08:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) and Alessandro57:, the tags have been resolved. You're right that there isn't a wide consensus about how effective it is but I think there have probably been enough studies that there is consensus that it can help. It's worth noting that the two extremes that "can help" could mean from "It's not impossible, but we have no reason to believe it" to "99% of people benefit from it but not all". This falls somewhere between, and I'd argue closer to the latter since studies have been done on the matter. However, to your point, I think it would would be acceptable to say "smell training has helped people learn to smell again" if you feel that specificity would be a better way of informing people. I think that it is less informing to people since it may lead people to believe it is a one-off occurrence rather than a wide possibility. That being said, either would be fine to me. I'd also like to provide some examples of past DKYs that used similar phrasing. It's not exactly the same since only the "liver disease" one was citing a paper that was recent around the time of the DKY. Just giving examples of how "can help" has been used in medical related DKYs. ... that the N100 brain response to auditory stimuli can help predict coma patients' probability of recovery? --- ... that measuring the levels of certain enzymes called transaminases can help to diagnose some liver diseases? --- ... that a relative of the culinary herb sage, Salvia involucrata, has been found to contain compounds that can help prevent memory loss? RayScript (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

"Can" in this context is a pretty strong statement that it does have the ability to do something. "Can" is a tricky word because in informal contexts, it's often used with a meaning closer to "could" or "might", which expresses more uncertainty, but in formal contexts it's usually stronger. This ambiguity is a reason it shouldn't be used here.

For biomedical statements, review articles rather than primary research articles are considered to be reliable. Looking at the sources more closely, this meta-analysis [1] is the only review article cited, and it does come to a positive conclusion about smell training. There should be a medical citation for the opposing camp rather than an article in Allure. Also, I didn't see a mention of olfactory implants in the source. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 01:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think any of the hooks are suitable. We're not a dictionary. Kingsif (talk) 12:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Isn't the basic reason "smell training" is of interest, or indeed being written about, the COVID-19 connection? If so, what about:

ALT3 ... that some people recovering from COVID-19 are trying smell training to cure their anosmia?

That phrasing makes no claim that it's effective, and it's not just a definition. There are still two tags in the article about citations and I haven't assessed the article in general, just hoping to help move the issue about the hook itself along. › Mortee _talk 22:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Mortee I appreciate your suggestion. I think that is a great hook. If people are concerned that anosmia too technical of a term it could also end with "to help cure their loss of smell?" @Alessandro57: @Kingsif: do either of these seem reasonable to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RayScript (talk • contribs) 23:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Also tagging John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) › Mortee _talk 00:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I just gave the article a copy edit, replaced some popular press sources with MEDRS, and resolved the inline maintenance tags. Let's get this DYK passed :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The article is fine now. It's best to avoid terms like "some people" since it's overly vague language. Which people are being referred to? I'd suggest something like the following. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 03:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• ALT4ALT5 ... that smell training is being used to treat long-term loss of smell after COVID-19?

I think the vagueness is justified in this case. We couldn't and shouldn't know which individual patients are doing it. I'm ticking this for ALTs 3-5 based on my reading of the earlier comments. Other concerns seem to have been addressed. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH), there's an ALT4 already from RayScript. I've copied yours below it as ALT5 and edited your comment to avoid confusion; I hope that's OK but I'm sorry if it's tampering. Tagging everyone in case there are any remaining objections: Novem Linguae, Alex2006, Kingsif › Mortee _talk 14:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Fine for me, thanks. Alex2006 (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

More sources

In case anyone wants to expand the article, you might consider tracking down these:

• "Diagnostics and treatment of olfactory dysfunction" https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30725125/ (original in German)
• "Position paper on olfactory dysfunction" https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29528615/
• Clinical Implications of Psychophysical Olfactory Testing: Assessment, Diagnosis, and Treatment Outcome https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8012732/ (Frontiers in Neuroscience is mid-range journal[2] by a publisher with variable quality, from very good to pretty bad. A couple of editors remove anything by this publisher rather than trying to figure out which [few] are the actually bad ones.)
• "Effects of olfactory training on posttraumatic olfactory dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis " https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33486898/ (top-tier journal in the relevant medical specialty)
• "Olfactory Training for Postviral Olfactory Dysfunction: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis" https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32660334/
• "The Loss of Smell and Taste in the COVID-19 Outbreak: a Tale of Many Countries" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7397453/
• "Treatment of post‐viral olfactory dysfunction: an evidence‐based review with recommendations" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7361320/ (top-tier journal in the relevant medical specialty)
• "Management of new onset loss of sense of smell during the COVID-19 pandemic - BRS Consensus Guidelines" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7461026/ (Consensus guidelines are always good)
• "Olfactory Training" https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33620818/ Stat Pearls isn't necessarily a great source, but it provides some information about the limitations of the research evidence.

I hope this will be useful to anyone who wants to expand this article even further. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)