###### Abstract
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Reference** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Subjects [n]** \\ **(Total Sample)** \\ \end{tabular} & **Setting** & **Rating Scale** & **Olfactory Test** & **Verdict** \\ \hline
[2] & 63 & Laryngectomy & 7-point NBS & Threshold (PEA), discrimination (8 odors) & High correlation \\
[3] & 60 and 23 & Healthy volunteers & VAS & Threshold, discrimination, identification (Sniffin’ Sticks) & No correlation (\(n=60\)) or present correlation (\(n=23\)) \\
[4] & 100 & Pregnant women & 7-point NBS & Identification (UPSIT) & No correlation \\
[5] & 36 & Healthy volunteers & VAS & Identification (n-butanol), 10-item identification (CCCRC) & Good correlation \\
[6] & 1311 &
\begin{tabular}{c} Twins, general \\ population \\ \end{tabular} & 7-point NBS & Identification (6 odors) & No correlation \\
[7] & 211 & General population & 5-point NBS, VAS & Identification (16 odors) & Weak correlation \\
[8] & 1005 & General population & 4-point NBS, VAS & Identification (16 odors) & No correlation \\
[9] & 1082 & General population & 5-point NBS & None & - \\
[10] & 31 & Healthy volunteers & VAS & Threshold, discrimination, identification (Sniffin’ Sticks) & Not tested \\
[11] & 31 & Fibromyalgia & 3-point NBS & Threshold, discrimination, identification (Sniffin’ Sticks) & Poor correlation \\
[1] & 80 & Nasal polyposis & VAS based DyNaChron & Threshold (n-butanol), identification (16 odors) & Strong correlation \\
[12] & & Pregnant women & 9-point NBS & Threshold (PEA), & Poor agreement \\
[13] & 75 &
\begin{tabular}{c} Patients with \\ olfactory dysfunction \\ \end{tabular} & 9-point NBS & Threshold, discrimination, identification (Sniffin’ Sticks) & No correlation \\  & & General population & & & \\
[14] & 1422 & and olfactory & 5-point NBS & Identification (16 odors) & Low but significant correlation \\  & & dysfunction & & & \\
[15] & 162 & HIV infection & 1-point NBS & Threshold, discrimination, identification (Sniffin’ Sticks) & Self-ratings and test \\
[16] & 9 &
\begin{tabular}{c} Nasopharyngealgeal \\ carcinoma \\ \end{tabular} & 10-point NBS, 6-point & Olfactory event-related potentials & Significant correlation \\
[17] & 117 (44 tested) & General population & 7-point NBS & Identification (14 odors) & No correlation \\
[18] & 1555 & Olfactory loss & 5-point NBS & Threshold (n-butanol), identification (CCST) & Significant correlation \\  & & & Discrimination, identification & Correlation \\
[19] & 193 & Children & Questionnaire & (Sniffin’ Sticks), Threshold (5 & No correlation \\  & & & & \\  & & General population & & \\
[20] & 6049 & and olfactory & 5-point numerical & 12-item odor identification & Moderate agreement \\  & & dysfunction & & \\
[21] & 52 & Nasal polyposis & 10-point NBS & Threshold, discrimination, identification (Sniffin’ Sticks) & High correlation \\
[22] & 203 & Olfactory & 10-point NBS & Threshold, discrimination, identification (Sniffin’ Sticks) & Weak significant correlation \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} PEA: phenylethyl alcohol; VAS: visual analogue scale; NRS: numerical (ordinal) rating scale; CCCRC: Connecticut Chemosensory Clinical Research Center (CCCRC) olfactory test; UPSIT: University of Pennsylvania Sell Identification Test; T&T&T:Detection threshold and recognition threshold olfactory function well and measured olfactory function and self-ratings correlated only weakly [7]. This seems to be partly rooted in the fact that many individuals in the general population are not aware of their own olfactory status [23; 24].  
High correlations have been reported twice and independently for patients with nasal polyposis [1; 21]. This raised the question of whether they constitute a special group that is particularly aware of their olfactory function. In the present study, a cohort of patients  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Studies (in order of publication year) that use olfactory self-ratings.