ArticleAllergy & rhinology (Providence, R.I.)2014
Comparison of two nasal cell collection methods in determining cyclic adenosine monophosphate levels and its association with olfaction: A feasibility study.
Article in Allergy & rhinology (Providence, R.I.), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) is a second messenger that may be associated with olfactory function. No known studies have compared existing collection methods for determining nasal cAMP levels. This is a prospective study comparing the comfort and reliability of the nasal curette and cytobrush. A secondary outcome collected for feasibility testing was characterizing the association between cAMP and olfactory function. We enrolled 19 normal olfaction and 10 olfactory dysfunction subjects. Olfaction was measured by the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test. Two samples were obtained from each nasal cavity at the initial visit and at 1 week follow-up. Comfort was measured by a visual analog scale (VAS). cAMP levels were determined by an enzyme immunoassay. For the curette and cytobrush, mean VAS scores were 0.3 and 0.7 cm (p = 0.48). Intraclass correlation coefficients were 0.81 (curette) and 0.65 (cytobrush) for the initial visit and 0.64 and 0.54 between the initial and follow-up visit. Using the curette, mean cAMP was 537 and 480 fmol/(mg/mL) for the normal and dysfunction cohorts (p = 0.18). Using the cytobrush, cAMP was 505 and 477, respectively (p = 0.65). The curette and cytobrush are both comfortable and reliable collection methods for determining nasal cAMP levels.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.