ArticleAnesthesiology and pain medicine2011
Efficacy of botulinum toxin type a for treating chronic low back pain.
Article in Anesthesiology and pain medicine, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of botulinum toxin type a for treating chronic low back pain: a systematic review and metanalysis.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Pooled it
- Efficacy, acceptability, and safety of muscle relaxants for adults with non-specific low back pain: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2021Pooled it
- Botulinum toxin type A for treating chronic low back pain: A double blinded randomized control study.World journal of methodology · 2024Trial
- Are paraspinous intramuscular injections of botulinum toxin a (BoNT-A) efficient in the treatment of chronic low-back pain? A randomised, double-blinded crossover trial.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2017Trial
- Trial
- Injection Botulinum Toxin A in Treatment of Resistant Chronic Low Back Pain: A Prospective Open-Label Study.Cureus · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLow back pain is a major cause of disability and can result in substantial morbidity and high healthcare costs. Botulinum toxin has been used successfully to alleviate pain for a number of conditions caused by muscle contractions or spasms.
objectivesThe aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of botulinum toxin type A (BoNT-A; Dysport®, Ipsen, UK) for treating chronic low back pain (CLBP). PATIENTS AND
methodsThis was a single-blind, randomized clinical trial study. Fifty patients with CLBP received either BoNT-A (40 Ipsen units per injection) or saline in 5 sites in the paraspinal muscles (n = 25 per group). A visual analogue system (VAS) was used to measure pain levels at baseline and at 4 and 8 weeks post-injection. Disability was assessed using the Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire at baseline and at 8 weeks post-injection.
resultsAfter 4 weeks, 76% of patients in the BoNT-A group reported pain relief compared to 20% in the saline group (P < 0. 005). Additionally, greater pain relief was experienced by patients in the BoNT-A group at 8 weeks (64% vs. 12%; P < 0. 001). By week 8, significant functional improvement (a minimum two-grade improvement between baseline and post-treatment assessments) was demonstrated in a higher number of patients receiving BoNT-A than in the saline group (68% vs. 12% , respectively; P < 0. 005). Patients experienced only minor side effects.
conclusionsBoNT-A improves CLBP with a low incidence of side effects and can be used as a therapeutic tool in the management of these patients.
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.