ArticleJournal of personalized medicine2023
Comparing Cytology Brushes for Optimal Human Nasal Epithelial Cell Collection: Implications for Airway Disease Diagnosis and Research.
Article in Journal of personalized medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimized Whole-Mount Fluorescence Staining Protocol for Pulmonary Toxicity Evaluation Using Mouse Respiratory Epithelia.Methods and protocols · 2025Article
- A Simple Method for Imaging and Quantifying Respiratory Cilia Motility in Mouse Models.Methods and protocols · 2025Article
- Assessment of liquid media requirements for storing and evaluating respiratory cilia motility.PeerJ · 2025Article
- Sphk1 regulates HMGB1 via HDAC4 and mediates epithelial pyroptosis in allergic rhinitis.The World Allergy Organization journal · 2024Article
- Advancing Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia Diagnosis through High-Speed Video Microscopy Analysis.Cells · 2024Article
- Culture expansion of primary human nasal epithelial cells (NEC) isolated with a nasal scraping spoon.The Journal of international medical research · 2023Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Primary nasal epithelial cells and culture models are used as important diagnostic, research and drug development tools for several airway diseases. Various instruments have been used for the collection of human nasal epithelial (HNE) cells but no global consensus yet exists regarding the optimal tool. This study compares the efficiency of two cytology brushes (Olympus (2 mm diameter) and Endoscan (8 mm diameter)) in collecting HNE cells. The study involved two phases, with phase one comparing the yield, morphology and cilia beat frequency (CBF) of cells collected from paediatric participants using each of the two brushes. Phase two compared nasal brushing under general anaesthetic and in the awake state, across a wide age range, via the retrospective audit of the use of the Endoscan brush in 145 participants. Results indicated no significant difference in CBF measurements between the two brushes, suggesting that the choice of brush does not compromise diagnostic accuracy. However, the Endoscan brush collected significantly more total and live cells than the Olympus brush, making it a more efficient option. Importantly, the Endoscan brush is more cost-effective, with a notable price difference between the two brushes.
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.