1950
DOI: 10.1288/00005537-195006000-00001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Structural changes in the ciliated epithelial cell during upper respiratory infection: Preliminary report

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0
1

Year Published

1952
1952
2010
2010

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
0
5
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Hilding (1934) reported studies of the common cold in which he had observed large numbers of epithelial cells and fragments of cells in the secretions during the first three days. Bryan and Bryan (1950) had done a preliminary study of nasal smears in the common cold and they found similar results. Later on Bryan and Bryan (1959) did many studies of the nasal cytology in various nasal diseases.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 71%
“…Hilding (1934) reported studies of the common cold in which he had observed large numbers of epithelial cells and fragments of cells in the secretions during the first three days. Bryan and Bryan (1950) had done a preliminary study of nasal smears in the common cold and they found similar results. Later on Bryan and Bryan (1959) did many studies of the nasal cytology in various nasal diseases.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 71%
“…Smears were classified as cytologically 'positive', when more than 5 cells or cell fragments of columnar type were present; the remainder were classified as 'negative'. Other changes in the columnar cell morphology, described by Bryan & Bryan (1953) were recorded when present. Each smear was independently assessed by both authors without reference to clinical data.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 87%
“…These cilia had a 9 + 2 pattern with two central singlets, nine peripheral doublets with dynein arms, radial spokes, and a central sheath 17. Because these structures are fairly rare, the recognition of DCT is critical to avoid misdiagnosing a presumed protozoan infection, such as B. coli and embarking on further costly investigations and unnecessary treatments 23, 24…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%