Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33719696›Full record

SynthesisJournal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England)2021

Efficacy of onabotulinumtoxinA in the treatment of unipolar major depression: Systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression analyses of double-blind randomised controlled trials.

Danilo Arnone, Hassan Galadari, Carl J Rodgers, Linda Östlundh, Karim Abdel Aziz, Emmanuel Stip, Allan H Young

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Danilo ArnoneUnited Arab Emirates University, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3831-2301
Hassan GaladariUnited Arab Emirates University, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates.
Carl J RodgersCentre for Affective Disorders, Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neurosciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Linda ÖstlundhUnited Arab Emirates University, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates.
Karim Abdel AzizUnited Arab Emirates University, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates.
Emmanuel StipUnited Arab Emirates University, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates.
Allan H YoungCentre for Affective Disorders, Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neurosciences, King's College London, London, UK.
United Arab Emirates University · AEKing's College London · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOnabotulinumtoxinA is a novel therapeutic intervention whose mechanism of action is believed to modify the negative facial feedback, thus abating symptoms of depression. This putative new antidepressant agent offers minimal systemic side effects and negligible risk of pharmacological interactions. We set out to examine the evidence for the use of onabotulinumtoxinA in major depression.

methodsA systematic search of the literature identified double-blind randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the use of onabotulinumtoxinA in the treatment of major depression versus placebo. Data, reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), was combined in meta-analyses (PROSPERO registration ID: CRD42020183538).

resultsThe search identified five RCTs (four double-blind) comparing onabotulinumtoxinA to placebo. OnabotulinumtoxinA was more effective than placebo when administered within the 20-40 IU dose range in double-blind RCTs. The analysis was free of publication bias and significantly heterogeneous. Meta-regression analyses indicated that onabotulinumtoxinA was more efficacious in women and in higher doses in female patients and less effective with polypharmacy, especially when an increasing number of antidepressants were prescribed. The effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxinA was higher in more recently published double-blind RCTs.

conclusionThe meta-analysis supports the efficacy of the intervention with the results being highly heterogeneous across studies. In view of the heterogeneity of the findings and the significant moderators of benefit (sex, year of study completion and the interaction between sex and dose), more research is required to better understand the role of onabotulinumtoxinA in the treatment of depression.

Indexed as

Antidepressive AgentsBotulinum Toxins, Type ADose-Response Relationship, DrugDrug InteractionsFemaleHumansMajor Depressive DisorderMaleNeuromuscular AgentsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSex FactorsAntidepressive AgentsBotulinum Toxins, Type ANeuromuscular Agentsonabotulinum toxin Adouble-blind randomised controlled trialmajor depressionmeta-analysisOnabotulinumtoxinA

Identifiers

PMID33719696
PMCPMC8366169
OpenAlexW3139103695

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.