Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26833660›Full record

ArticleInternational forum of allergy & rhinology2016

Office-based olfactory mucosa biopsies.

Eric H Holbrook, Lina Rebeiz, James E Schwob

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International forum of allergy & rhinology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Molecular Evidence for Olfactory Neuroblastoma as a Tumor of Malignant Globose Basal Cells.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2023
    Article
  10. Preparation of Human Olfactory Epithelial Biopsies for Downstream Analysis.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Comparison of the Healing Effect of Nasal Saline Irrigation with Triamcinolone Acetonide Versus Nasal Saline Irrigation alone in COVID-19 Related Olfactory Dysfunction: A Randomized Controlled Study.Indian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Olfactory cleft mucus inflammatory proteins in CRS: a case-control study.International forum of allergy & rhinology · 2021
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Eric H HolbrookDepartment of Otolaryngology, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary/Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Lina RebeizDepartment of Developmental, Molecular, and Chemical Biology, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA.
James E SchwobDepartment of Developmental, Molecular, and Chemical Biology, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA.

Funding

Anatomical Bases of Human Olfactory DysfunctionR01DC010242 · NIDCD · TUFTS UNIVERSITY BOSTON · PI SCHWOB, JAMES E. · 2009 to 2013
$2.2M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC010242
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRequests from researchers for olfactory mucosal biopsies are increasing as a result of advances in the fields of neuroscience and stem cell biology. Published studies report variable rates of success in obtaining true olfactory tissue, often below 50%. In cases where biopsies are not obtained carefully and confirmed through histological techniques, erroneous conclusions are made. Attention to the epithelium alone without submucosal analysis may add to the confusion. A consistent biopsy technique can help rhinologists obtain higher yields of olfactory mucosa. Confirmatory tissue staining analysis assures olfactory mucosa has been obtained, thereby strengthening clinical correlations and scientific conclusions.

methodsBiopsies of the septum within the anterior olfactory cleft were obtained under endoscopic guidance in an office procedure room using topical local anesthetic (lidocaine). After mucosal incision, a small, cupped, biopsy forceps was used to obtain specimens approximately 2 to 3 mm in size. Specimens were sectioned and analyzed with immunohistochemistry for presence of olfactory epithelium and/or olfactory fascicles.

resultsA total of 14 subjects were biopsied in this analysis. Four subjects had biopsies in the operating room (OR). The remaining 10 underwent biopsies in the clinic. All biopsies obtained in the OR revealed evidence of olfactory mucosa. Of the 10 clinic biopsies, 8 (80%) revealed evidence of olfactory mucosa. No complications were encountered.

conclusionHigh yields of olfactory mucosa can be obtained safely in an office-based setting. Technique, including attention to the area of biopsy, and confirmatory analysis are important in assuring presence of olfactory tissue.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAmbulatory CareBiopsyEndoscopyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNerve Tissue ProteinsNeurofilament ProteinsOffice VisitsOlfactory Marker ProteinOlfactory MucosaReceptors, Nerve Growth FactorS100 ProteinsNerve Tissue ProteinsNeurofilament ProteinsNGFR protein, humanOlfactory Marker ProteinOMP protein, humanReceptors, Nerve Growth FactorS100 ProteinsTUBB3 protein, humanTubulinhumansimmunohistochemistryintermediate filamentsolfactory ensheathing cellsolfactory epitheliumolfactory filap75 neurotrophin receptorS100

Identifiers

PMID26833660
PMCPMC4921276

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.