Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26961367›Full record

Trial reportTrials2016

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a patient-initiated botulinum toxin treatment model for blepharospasm and hemifacial spasm compared to standard care: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Sadie Wickwar, Hayley McBain, Stanton P Newman, Shashivadan P Hirani, Catherine Hurt, Nicola Dunlop, Chris Flood, Daniel G Ezra

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Trials, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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.

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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Sadie WickwarCentre for Health Services Research, School of Health Sciences, City University London, London, UK. sadie.wickwar.1@city.ac.uk.
Hayley McBainCentre for Health Services Research, School of Health Sciences, City University London, London, UK. hayley.mcbain.1@city.ac.uk.
Stanton P NewmanCentre for Health Services Research, School of Health Sciences, City University London, London, UK. stanton.newman.1@city.ac.uk.
Shashivadan P HiraniCentre for Health Services Research, School of Health Sciences, City University London, London, UK. shashi.hirani.1@city.ac.uk.
Catherine HurtCentre for Health Services Research, School of Health Sciences, City University London, London, UK. catherine.hurt.1@city.ac.uk.
Nicola DunlopMoorfields Eye Hospital, London, UK. nicola.dunlop@moorfields.nhs.uk.
Chris FloodCentre for Health Services Research, School of Health Sciences, City University London, London, UK. c.flood@city.ac.uk.
Daniel G EzraMoorfields Eye Hospital, London, UK. d.ezra@ucl.ac.uk.
City, University of London · GBMoorfields Eye Hospital · GBMoorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBlepharospasm and hemifacial spasm are debilitating conditions that significantly impact on patient quality of life. Cyclical treatment with botulinum toxin injections offers temporary relief, but the duration of treatment efficacy is variable. The standard model of patient care defines routine fixed-time based scheduled treatment cycles which may lead to unnecessarily frequent treatment for some patients and experience of distressing symptoms in others, if symptoms return before the scheduled follow-up period. METHODS/

designA randomised controlled trial will compare a patient-initiated model of care, where patients determine botulinum toxin treatment timing, to the standard model of care in which care is scheduled by the clinical team. A sample of 266 patients with blepharospasm or hemifacial spasm will be recruited from Moorfields Eye Hospital (MEH), London. The trial will be accompanied by a mixed-methods evaluation of acceptability of the new service. Patients who meet eligibility criteria will be assessed at baseline and those in the intervention group will be provided with instructions on how to book their own treatment appointments. Patients in both groups will be followed up 3 and 9 months into the trial and all patients will be returned to usual care after 9 months to meet safety protocols. Primary outcome measures include disease severity (questionnaire), functional disability (questionnaire) and patient satisfaction with care (questionnaire). Secondary outcomes include disease-specific quality of life (questionnaire), mood (questionnaire), illness and treatment perceptions (questionnaire and semi-structured interviews), economic impact (questionnaire) and acceptability (questionnaire and semi-structured interviews). DISCUSSION: This trial will assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a patient-led care model for botulinum toxin therapy. If the new model is shown to be effective in reducing distress and disability in these populations and is found to be acceptable to patients, whilst being cost-effective, this will have significant implications for service organisation across the NHS.

trial registrationUK Clinical Research Network (UKCRN) Portfolio 18660. Clinicaltrials.gov ID NCT102577224 (registered 29 October 2015).

Indexed as

Drug CostsPatient ParticipationAcetylcholine Release InhibitorsAffectAppointments and SchedulesBlepharospasmBotulinum ToxinsClinical ProtocolsCost-Benefit AnalysisCost of IllnessDisability EvaluationDrug Administration ScheduleHemifacial SpasmHumansInterviews as TopicLondonAcetylcholine Release InhibitorsBotulinum Toxins

Identifiers

PMID26961367
PMCPMC4784312
OpenAlexW2295729745

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.