Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29720614›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2018

Quantitation of the cellular content of saliva and buccal swab samples.

Christiane Theda, Seo Hye Hwang, Anna Czajko, Yuk Jing Loke, Pamela Leong, Jeffrey M Craig

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 162 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
162citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
9.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

162 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 274 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. New insights into the (epi)genetics of twinning.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

102 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Christiane ThedaThe Royal Women's Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7577-6004
Seo Hye HwangMurdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Anna CzajkoMurdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Yuk Jing LokeMurdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Pamela LeongMurdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Jeffrey M CraigMurdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia. jeffrey.craig@deakin.edu.au.
Murdoch Children's Research Institute · AURoyal Children's Hospital · AURoyal Women's Hospital · AUThe University of Melbourne · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Buccal swabs and saliva are the two most common oral sampling methods used for medical research. Often, these samples are used interchangeably, despite previous evidence that both contain buccal cells and blood leukocytes in different proportions. For some research, such as epigenetic studies, the cell types contributing to the analysis are highly relevant. We collected such samples from twelve children and twenty adults and, using Papanicolaou staining, measured the proportions of epithelial cells and leukocytes through microscopy. To our knowledge, no studies have compared cellular heterogeneity in buccal swab and saliva samples from adults and children. We confirmed that buccal swabs contained a higher proportion of epithelial cells than saliva and that children have a greater proportion of such cells in saliva compared to adults. At this level of resolution, buccal swabs and saliva contained similar epithelial cell subtypes. Gingivitis in children was associated with a higher proportion of leukocytes in saliva samples but not in buccal swabs. Compared to more detailed and costly methods such as flow cytometry or deconvolution methods used in epigenomic analysis, the procedure described here can serve as a simple and low-cost method to characterize buccal and saliva samples. Microscopy provides a low-cost tool to alert researchers to the presence of oral inflammation which may affect a subset of their samples. This knowledge might be highly relevant to their specific research questions, may assist with sample selection and thus might be crucial information despite the ability of data deconvolution methods to correct for cellular heterogeneity.

Indexed as

BiomarkersCell CountEpithelial CellsHumansImmunohistochemistryLeukocytesMicroscopyMouth MucosaSalivaBiomarkers

Identifiers

PMID29720614
PMCPMC5932057
OpenAlexW2805415233

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.