Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33211907›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2020

Botulinum toxin type A therapy for blepharospasm.

Gonçalo S Duarte, Filipe B Rodrigues, 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 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
–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

21 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. A scoping review about the efficacy of clonazepam for the treatment of benign essential blepharospasm.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Genetic Update and Treatment for Dystonia.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Possible role of frankincense in the treatment of benign essential blepharospasm.American journal of ophthalmology case reports · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Gonçalo S Duarte *Laboratory of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal.
Filipe B Rodrigues *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. Blepharospasm is the second most common form of focal dystonia. It is a disabling disorder, characterised by chronic, intermittent or persistent, involuntary eyelid closure, due to spasmodic contractions of the orbicularis oculi muscles. Currently, botulinum toxin type A (BtA) is considered the first line of therapy for this condition.

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

methodsWe searched Cochrane Movement Disorders' Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, reference lists of included articles, and conference proceedings. We ran all elements of the search, with no language restrictions, in July 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: Double-blind, parallel, randomised, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) of BtA versus placebo in adults with blepharospasm. 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 did not carry out any prespecified subgroup analyses. The primary efficacy outcome was improvement on any validated symptomatic rating scale. The primary safety outcome was the proportion of participants with any adverse event. MAIN

resultsWe included three RCTs, assessed at low to moderate overall risk of bias, which randomised 313 participants with blepharospasm. Two studies excluded participants with poorer prior responses to BtA treatment, therefore, they included an enriched population with a higher probability of benefiting from this therapy. All trials were industry-funded. All RCTs evaluated the effect of a single BtA treatment session. BtA resulted in a moderate to large improvement in blepharospasm-specific severity, with a reduction of 0.93 points on the Jankovic Rating Scale (JRS) severity subscale at four to six weeks after injection (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 1.25; I² = 9%) compared to placebo. BtA was also resulted in a moderate to large improvement in blepharospasm-specific disability and blepharospasm-specific involuntary movements at four to six weeks after injection (disability: 0.69 JRS disability subscale points, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.19; I² = 74%; blepharospasm-specific involuntary movements: standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.79, 0.31 to 1.27; I² = 58%) compared to placebo. BtA did not show a risk of adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 1.18, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.60; I² = 0%). However, BtA increased the risk of vision complaints and eyelid ptosis (vision complaints: RR 5.73, 95% CI 1.79 to 18.36; I² = 51%; eyelid ptosis: RR 4.02, 95% CI 1.61 to 10.00; I² = 39%). There was no distinction between BtA and placebo in the number of participants who dropped out of the trial. A single trial estimated the duration of effects to be 10.6 weeks (range 6.1 to 19.1). We found no evidence supporting the existence of a clear dose-response relationship with BtA. We found no data reporting the impact of BtA on health-related quality of life, or the development of secondary non-responsiveness. AUTHORS'

conclusionsWe are moderately certain that a single BtA treatment resulted in a clinically relevant reduction of blepharospasm-specific severity and disability, and have low certainty that it is well tolerated, when compared with placebo. There is low-certainty evidence that people treated with BtA are not at an increased risk of developing adverse events, though BtA treatment likely increases the risk of visual complaints and eyelid ptosis. 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, or the impact on quality of life.

Indexed as

BiasBlepharospasmBotulinum Toxins, Type ADose-Response Relationship, DrugFemaleHumansMaleNeuromuscular AgentsPlacebosRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicBotulinum Toxins, Type ANeuromuscular AgentsPlacebos

Identifiers

PMID33211907
PMCPMC8094161

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.