Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27456698›Full record

ArticleJournal of anatomy2016

Early development of the malleus and incus in humans.

Charlotte M Burford, Matthew J Mason

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of anatomy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Middle ear congenital cholesteatoma: systematic review, meta-analysis and insights on its pathogenesis.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
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

2 authors.

Charlotte M BurfordDepartment of Physiology, Development & Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Matthew J MasonDepartment of Physiology, Development & Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It is widely accepted by developmental biologists that the malleus and incus of the mammalian middle ear are first pharyngeal arch derivatives, a contention based originally on classical embryology that has now been backed up by molecular evidence from rodent models. However, it has been claimed in several studies of human ossicular development that the manubrium of the malleus and long process of the incus are actually derived from the second arch. This 'dual-arch' interpretation is commonly presented in otolaryngology textbooks, and it has been used by clinicians to explain the aetiology of certain congenital abnormalities of the human middle ear. In order to re-examine the origins of the human malleus and incus, we made three-dimensional reconstructions of the pharyngeal region of human embryos from 7 to 28 mm crown-rump length, based on serial histological sections from the Boyd Collection. We considered the positions of the developing ossicles relative to the pharyngeal pouches and clefts, and the facial and chorda tympani nerves. Confirming observations from previous studies, the primary union between first pharyngeal pouch and first cleft found in our youngest specimens was later lost, the external meatus developing rostroventral to this position. The mesenchyme of the first and second arches in these early embryos seemed to be continuous, but the boundaries of the developing ossicles proved to be very hard to determine at this stage. When first distinguishable, the indications were that both the manubrium of the malleus and the long process of the incus were emerging within the first pharyngeal arch. We therefore conclude that the histological evidence, on balance, favours the 'classical' notion that the human malleus and incus are first-arch structures. The embryological basis of congenital ossicular abnormalities should be reconsidered in this light.

Indexed as

Embryonic DevelopmentHumansIncusMalleusdevelopmentembryologyincusmalleuspharyngeal arch

Identifiers

PMID27456698
PMCPMC5108158

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.