Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33180963›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2020

Botulinum toxin type A therapy for cervical dystonia.

Filipe B Rodrigues, Gonçalo S Duarte, Raquel E Marques, Mafalda Castelão, Joaquim Ferreira, Cristina Sampaio, Austen P Moore, João Costa

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing 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

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

  1. Botulinum toxin type A versus anticholinergics for cervical dystonia.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Optimal physiotherapy management strategies for cervical dystonia: an international Delphi study.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Genetic Update and Treatment for Dystonia.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Review
  19. Review
  20. [Pain and cervical dystonia].Schmerz (Berlin, Germany) · 2024
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Filipe B Rodrigues *Laboratory of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal.
Gonçalo S Duarte *Laboratory of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal.
Raquel E MarquesInstituto de Medicina Molecular João Lobo Antunes, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal.
Mafalda CastelãoLaboratory of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal.
Joaquim FerreiraLaboratory of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal.
Cristina SampaioCHDI Foundation, Princeton, NJ, USA.
Austen P MooreThe Walton Centre NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.
João CostaLaboratory of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal.

Funding

Department of Health 16/114/26
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2005. Cervical dystonia is the most common form of focal dystonia, and is a highly disabling movement disorder, characterised by involuntary, usually painful, head posturing. Currently, botulinum toxin type A (BtA) is considered the first line therapy for this condition.

objectivesTo compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of BtA versus placebo, in people with cervical dystonia. SEARCH

methodsWe searched Cochrane Movement Disorders' Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, reference lists of articles, and conference proceedings in July 2020. All elements of the search, with no language restrictions, were last run in July 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: Double-blind, parallel, randomised, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) of BtA versus placebo in adults with cervical dystonia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed records, selected included studies, extracted data using a paper pro forma, and evaluated the risk of bias. We resolved disagreements by consensus or by consulting a third review author. We performed meta-analyses using a random-effects model, for the comparison of BtA versus placebo, to estimate pooled effects and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). We performed preplanned subgroup analyses according to BtA dose used, the BtA formulation used, and the use (or not) of guidance for BtA injections. The primary efficacy outcome was improvement in cervical dystonia-specific impairment. The primary safety outcome was the proportion of participants with any adverse event. MAIN

resultsWe included nine RCTs, with moderate, overall risk of bias, that included 1144 participants with cervical dystonia. Seven studies excluded participants with poorer responses to BtA treatment, therefore, including an enriched population with a higher probability of benefiting from this therapy. Only one trial was independently funded. All RCTs evaluated the effect of a single BtA treatment session, using doses from 150 U to 500 U of onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox), 120 U to 240 U of incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin), and 250 U to 1000 U of abobotulinumtoxinA (Dysport). BtA resulted in a moderate to large improvement from the participant's baseline clinical status, assessed by the investigators, with a mean reduction of 8.09 points in the Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (TWSTRS total score) at week four after injection (95% CI 6.22 to 9.96; I² = 0%) compared to placebo. This corresponded, on average, to a 18.4% improvement from baseline. The mean difference (MD) in TWSTRS pain subscore at week four was 2.11 (95% CI 1.38 to 2.83; I² = 0%) compared to placebo. Overall, both participants and clinicians reported an improvement of subjective clinical status. It was unclear if dropouts due to adverse events differed (risk ratio (RR) 2.51; 95% CI 0.42 to 14.94; I² = 0%) However, BtA treatment increased the risk of experiencing an adverse event (R) 1.23; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.43; I² = 28%). Neck weakness (14%; RR 3.40; 95% CI 1.19 to 9.71; I² = 15%), dysphagia (11%; RR 3.19; 95% CI 1.79 to 5.70; I² = 0%), and diffuse weakness or tiredness (8%; RR 1.80; 95% CI 1.10 to 2.95; I² = 0%) were the most common treatment-related adverse events. Treatment with BtA resulted in a decreased risk of dropouts. We have moderate certainty in the evidence across all of the aforementioned outcomes, with the exception of subjective assessment and tolerability, in which we have high confidence in the evidence. We found no evidence supporting the existence of a clear dose-response relationship between BtA and improvement in cervical dystonia-specific impairment, a destinction between BtA formulations, or a variation with use of EMG-guided injection for efficacy outcomes. Due to clinical heterogeneity, we did not pool health-related quality of life data, duration of clinical effect, or the development of secondary non-responsiveness. AUTHORS'

conclusionsWe are moderately certain in the evidence that a single BtA treatment session resulted in a clinically relevant reduction of cervical dystonia-specific impairment, and pain, and highly certain that it is well tolerated, compared with placebo. There is moderate-certainty evidence that people treated with BtA are at an increased risk of developing adverse events, most notably, dysphagia, neckweakness and diffuse weakness or tiredness. There are no data from RCTs evaluating the effectiveness and safety of repeated BtA injection cycles. There is no evidence from RCTs to allow us to draw definitive conclusions on the optimal treatment intervals and doses, the usefulness of guidance techniques for injection, the impact on quality of life, or the duration of treatment effect.

Indexed as

BiasBotulinum Toxins, Type ADeglutition DisordersHumansMuscle WeaknessNeuromuscular AgentsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTorticollisabobotulinumtoxinABotulinum Toxins, Type AincobotulinumtoxinANeuromuscular Agentsonabotulinum toxin A

Identifiers

PMID33180963
PMCPMC8106615

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.