ReviewCureus2026
Nasal Mucociliary Clearance Assessment: Historical Evolution, Methodological Approaches, and the Role of Activated Charcoal as a Visible Marker.
Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nasal mucociliary clearance assessment has evolved over more than a century through a continuous search for methods that balance physiological relevance, clinical practicality, objectivity, cost, reproducibility, and patient tolerance. Early approaches were based on direct observation and dye-based techniques, followed by saccharin transit time testing, visible particle methods, charcoal-based tracers, radiolabeled particle techniques, scintigraphic assessment, and modern specialized tests of ciliary function. The available methods differ substantially in their principles and practical applications. Saccharin transit time testing became widely used because of its simplicity, low cost, and accessibility, but its endpoint depends on subjective taste perception and patient reporting. Dye-based and visible particle techniques attempted to make mucociliary transport more directly observable, whereas radiolabeled and scintigraphic methods introduced greater objectivity at the cost of technical complexity and limited routine applicability. Modern investigations such as ciliary beat frequency analysis, high-speed video microscopy, nasal nitric oxide measurement, transmission electron microscopy, immunofluorescence, and genetic testing are essential in selected diagnostic contexts, particularly in primary ciliary dyskinesia, but they are not equivalent to direct nasal transport-time assessment. Activated charcoal should be understood within this broader historical and methodological evolution. It is not a newly introduced method and should not be presented as a universal replacement for established techniques. Rather, it is a topical, low-cost, dark, visible marker that may permit examiner-observed recognition of the endpoint. However, the additional value of standardized endoscopic control requires prospective comparative validation. This review examines the historical development of nasal mucociliary clearance assessment, compares the major methodological approaches, and critically discusses the potential methodological role of activated charcoal as a visible marker, particularly in pediatric otorhinolaryngology.
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.