Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33185743›Full record

ArticleEuropean 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 Surgery2021

Assessment of mucociliary clearance as an indicator of nasal function in patients with COVID-19: a cross-sectional study.

Mehtap Koparal, Ercan Kurt, Emine Elif Altuntas, Fatih Dogan

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in 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, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Optical Imaging of Cilia in the Head and Neck.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Biases in COVID-19 Case and Death Definitions: Potential Causes and Consequences.Disaster medicine and public health preparedness · 2022
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Mehtap KoparalDepartment of Otolaryngology, Adıyaman University Education and Training Hospital, Adıyaman, Turkey. drmehtapkoparal@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0749-0407
Ercan KurtDepartment of Otolaryngology, Adıyaman University Education and Training Hospital, Adıyaman, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2595-0873
Emine Elif AltuntasDepartment of Otolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine, Cumhuriyet University, Sivas, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4503-3730
Fatih DoganDepartment of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Adıyaman University Education and Training Hospital, Adıyaman, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8761-9321
Adıyaman University · TRSivas Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi · TRUniversity of Health Science · KH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe assessed the effects of COVID-19 infection on nasal mucociliary activity.

methodsThe study was conducted in the pandemic wards of Adiyaman University Training and Research Hospital during April and May 2020. All patients admitted to the COVID-19 pandemic wards during the study period were invited to participate in the study. The study included 40 adults who agreed to participate and underwent a mucociliary clearance test successfully. The primary outcome was mucociliary clearance time and the secondary variables of interest were age, sex, and sino-nasal outcome test-22 scores. The control group included 40 concomitant healthy patients who visited the outpatient ear, nose and throat clinic with non-nasal symptoms.

resultsThe study included 40 COVID-19-positive patients and 40 healthy controls. The mean mucociliary clearance times of the study (15.53 ± 5.57 min) and control (9.50 ± 3.70 min) groups were significantly different (Z = 4.675, p < 0.001). However, the mucociliary clearance time was not significantly different between males and females (t = 0.590, p = 0.558).

conclusionsNasal mucociliary clearance time was prolonged in COVID-19 patients compared to healthy controls. Thus, we conclude that smell and taste are crucial symptoms that should not be overlooked in patients suspected of COVID-19 disease.

Indexed as

COVID-19Mucociliary ClearanceAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleNasal MucosaPandemicsSARS-CoV-2COVID-19Mucociliary clearanceNasal disordersSmell disorders

Identifiers

PMID33185743
PMCPMC7661319
OpenAlexW3099162755

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.