Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23763852›Full record

SynthesisSystematic reviews2013

A comparative assessment of three formulations of botulinum toxin A for facial rhytides: a systematic review and meta-analyses.

James P Bonaparte, David Ellis, Jason G Quinn, Mohammed T Ansari, Jessica Rabski, Shaun J Kilty

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Evaluation of Intradermal Injection of Botulinum Toxin A for Facial Lifting.The Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology · 2020
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Neurotoxin Impurities: A Review of Threats to Efficacy.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2020
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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

6 authors.

James P BonaparteDepartment of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, The University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5G 2N2, Canada. DrJames.Bonaparte@gmail.com
David Ellis
Jason G Quinn
Mohammed T Ansari
Jessica Rabski
Shaun J Kilty

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBotulinum toxin A is a commonly used biological medication in the field of facial plastic surgery. Currently, there are three distinct formulations of botulinum toxin A, each with their purported benefits and advantages. However, there is considerable confusion as to the relative efficacy and side-effects associated with each formulation. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to systematically assess published studies and perform a meta-analysis to determine if there is a significant advantage of any of the individual formulations. METHODS/

designA systematic literature search was performed for all relevant English language randomized controlled trials using Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), MEDLINE, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, European Union (EU) Clinical Trials Register, Cochrane Library databases of clinical trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Inclusion criteria included any randomized controlled trial (RCT) that assessed the use of botulinum toxin for cosmetic purposes. The included articles were also analyzed for bias using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing the risk of bias in RCTs. DISCUSSION: The results of this review will provide clinicians with an unbiased, high level of evidence of the comparative efficacy of individual preparations of botulinum toxin A.

Indexed as

Botulinum Toxins, Type AFaceSkinSkin AgingHumansBotulinum Toxins, Type A

Identifiers

PMID23763852
PMCPMC3686697

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.