Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34414469›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 Surgery2022

Diagnostic performance of nasal cytology.

Andrea Ciofalo, Carlo Cavaliere, Cristoforo Incorvaia, Michaela Plath, Erminia Ridolo, Francesco Pucciarini, Giancarlo Altissimi, Antonio Greco, Marco de Vincentiis, Simonetta Masieri

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
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, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. 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

10 authors.

Andrea CiofaloDepartment of Sense Organs, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.
Carlo CavaliereDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Sciences, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy. carlo.cavaliere@uniroma1.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0378-8935
Cristoforo IncorvaiaCardiac/Pulmonary Rehabilitation, ASST Pini-CTO, Milan, Italy.
Michaela PlathDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Erminia RidoloMedicine and Surgery Department, University of Parma, Parma, Italy.
Francesco PucciariniMedicine and Surgery Department, University of Parma, Parma, Italy.
Giancarlo AltissimiDepartment of Sense Organs, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.
Antonio GrecoDepartment of Sense Organs, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.
Marco de VincentiisDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Sciences, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.
Simonetta MasieriDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Sciences, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeNasal pathologies are characterized by a symptomatology that hardly allows to distinguish allergic rhinitis (AR), non-allergic rhinitis (NAR), and chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). Nasal cytology (NC) has shown increasing importance in helping the clinician to differentiate the various phenotypes of rhinitis. NC allows us to evaluate nasal cellularity by distinguishing AR and various types of NAR. The objective of the study is to assess the diagnostic performance of the NC by evaluating its sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value.

methodsWe recruited 387 patients with persistent rhinitis symptoms, and nasal cytology was performed. The rhinocytogram was obtained by reading for fields and the cellular count was made using quantitative and semi-quantitative grading together.

resultsTwo hundred and fifteen patients (55.5%; 38 had acute rhinitis, 24 acute sinusitis, 153 chronic rhinosinusitis) out of 387 referred nasal symptoms. Cytological specimen showed a mean of 94 ± 4% ciliated cells, 29 ± 0.2% mucinous cells, 16 ± 0.1% neutrophils, 11 ± 0.08% eosinophils, 4 ± 0.03 lymphocytes, 4 ± 0.03% mast cells, and 4 ± 0.01% other cells. NC was positive in 271 cases (70%). After revision of medical history, 153 patients (39%) were considered positive for NAR. Test sensibility was 100% (95% CI 97-100), specificity was 49.6% (95% CI 43-56%). Positive predictive value (PPV) was 56% (95% CI 50-62%), and negative predictive value (NPV) was 100% (95% CI 96-100%). The positive likelihood ratio was 1.98 (95% CI 1.75-2.25). Accuracy of the test was 69.5% (95% CI 64.6-74.0%).

conclusionOur data showed ability to identify the true-positive patients with NAR but a low ability to identify the true-negative patients, with a global accuracy of 69.5%.

Indexed as

RhinitisRhinitis, AllergicSinusitisChronic DiseaseEosinophilsHumansNoseAllergic rhinitisChronic rhinosinusitisNasal cytologyNon-allergic rhinitisSensitivitySpecificity

Identifiers

PMID34414469

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.