Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21221669›Full record

ReviewJournal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996)2011

Difficulties with differentiating botulinum toxin treatment effects in essential blepharospasm.

Bettina Wabbels, Wolfgang H Jost, Peter Roggenkämper

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readComparative StudyReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996), 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03508882 (Pretarsal Versus Preseptal Botulinum Toxin for Patients With Eyelid Spasm), which is not on this map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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.

NCT03508882 phase4completednot on this mapstarted 2015, after this paper: background citation

Pretarsal Versus Preseptal Botulinum Toxin for Patients With Eyelid Spasm: a Randomized, Triple-blind, Placebo-controlled, Cross-over Clinical Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorThe University of Hong KongRan2015 to 2019Enrolled100ConditionsBlepharospasm, Hemifacial Spasm, Botulinum Toxins, Type AArmsBotulinum Toxin Type A 100Unit/Vial (Product), Saline Solution for Injection
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Dystonia rating scales: critique and recommendations.Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society · 2013
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Evaluation of non-motor symptoms in cervical dystonia, hemifacial spasm, and blepharospasm patients and their correlation with motor symptoms.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2023
    Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Blepharospasm: long-term treatment with either Botox®, Xeomin® or Dysport®.Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996) · 2015
    Article
  18. Review
  19. The focal dystonias: current views and challenges for future research.Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society · 2013
    Review
  20. Botulinum toxin in hemifacial spasm: the challenge to assess the effect of treatment.Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996) · 2012
    Review
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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Bettina WabbelsDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Bonn, Abbestr. 2, 53127 Bonn, Germany. bettina.wabbels@ukb.uni-bonn.de
Wolfgang H Jost
Peter Roggenkämper
University of Bonn · DEDeutsche Klinik für Diagnostik · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Blepharospasm is a focal dystonia in which the extraocular muscles contract repetitively, leading to excessive blinking and forced eyelid closure. Botulinum toxin type A (BoNTA) is the primary symptomatic treatment for blepharospasm and its effects have been evaluated using numerous rating scales. The main scales in use today were initially used to determine whether BoNTA treatment was superior to placebo, and most controlled trials have confirmed this. More recently, these scales have been used to determine whether there are efficacy differences between different BoNTs in blepharospasm. However, although the scales used in these trials are able to differentiate the effects of BoNT from placebo, they may not be sensitive enough to differentiate between BoNTs. Most of the scales include only four possible points for each item, which would necessitate a 25% greater improvement in one group than the other to detect any differences. Current scales are also relatively insensitive to patients with mild disability who may experience mainly psychosocial problems related to their blepharospasm. Clinical trials comparing BoNTs that include substantial numbers of mildly affected patients may be unlikely to find differences because the scales do not adequately measure mild symptoms. Additional challenges with evaluating blepharospasm include the lack of precision and objectivity of current measures, symptom variability, the need to evaluate aspects of the disorder that are most important to patients, and the different types of blepharospasm. Although no single scale may be able to capture all relevant aspects of blepharospasm, more sensitive and patient-centered scales are needed.

Indexed as

BlepharospasmBotulinum Toxins, Type AClinical Trials as TopicDiagnosis, DifferentialEndpoint DeterminationHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CareSeverity of Illness IndexBotulinum Toxins, Type A

Identifiers

PMID21221669
PMCPMC3104001
OpenAlexW2055027570

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.