ArticleThe journal of international advanced otology2018
Nucleolus vs Nucleus Count for Identifying Spiral Ganglion in Human Temporal Bone.
Article in The journal of international advanced otology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Spiral Ganglions and Speech Perception in the Elderly. Which Turn of the Cochlea is the More Relevant? A Preliminary Study on Human Temporal Bones.The journal of international advanced otology · 2020Article
- E-ABR in Patients with Cochlear Implant: A Comparison between Patients with Malformed Cochlea and Normal Cochlea.The journal of international advanced otology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesSpiral ganglion (SG) counting is used in experimental studies conducted on age-, noise-, and drug-induced sensorineural hearing loss, as well as in the assessment of cochlear implant performances. Different methods of counting have been reported, but no definite standardization of such procedure has been published. The aim of our study is to identify the best method to count human spiral ganglions (SGs). MATERIALS AND
methodsBy identification of nuclei or nucleoli as described by Schucknect, seven researchers with different experience levels counted SGs in 123 human temporal bones (TBs). Data on time of post-mortem bone removal post-mortem, methods of specimen's fixation, decalcification, and coloration were collected to test their possible influence on human tissue. Percentage, two-tailed t-test, Spearman's test, and one-way ANOVA were used to analyze the data.
resultsNucleoli were identified in 61% of cases, whereas nuclei were recognized in 100% of cases (p<0.005). Nucleoli presence in all four segments in the same temporal bone (TB) was observed in 69 cases (92%), whereas nuclei were identified in all four segments in 103 cases (83.7%) (p<0.001). The junior investigators requested a double check by the seniors in 25 (20.3%) cases for identifying and counting nucleoli, whereas the senior researchers showed no doubts in their identification and count. The only parameter positively affecting nucleoli identification in tissue preparation was bone removal for <12 h with respect to longer post-mortem time (p<0.001).
conclusionWe suggest counting nuclei, rather than nucleoli, for spiral ganglion computation because of easier recognition of nuclei, especially in case of investigator's limited experience.
Indexed as
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.