Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33852744›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2021

Botulinum toxin type A versus anticholinergics for cervical dystonia.

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

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
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.
Mafalda CastelãoLaboratory of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal.
Raquel E MarquesDepartment of Ophthalmology, Hospital de Santa Maria, 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

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

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. Before BtA, anticholinergics were the most widely accepted treatment.

objectivesTo compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of BtA versus anticholinergic drugs in adults with cervical dystonia. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Movement Disorders' Trials Register to June 2003, screened reference lists of articles and conference proceedings to September 2018, and searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase, with no language restrictions, to July 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: Double-blind, parallel, randomised trials (RCTs) of BtA versus anticholinergic drugs 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 and quality of the evidence. We resolved disagreements by consensus or by consulting a third review author. If enough data had been available, we were to perform meta-analyses using a random-effects model for the comparison of BtA versus anticholinergic drugs to estimate pooled effects and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). 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 one RCT of moderate overall risk of bias (as multiple domains were at unclear risk of bias), which included 66 BtA-naive participants with cervical dystonia. Two doses of BtA (Dysport; week 0 and 8; mean dose 262 to 292 U) were compared with daily trihexyphenidyl (up to 24 mg daily). The trial was sponsored by the BtA producer. BtA reduced cervical dystonia severity by an average of 2.5 points (95% CI 0.68 to 4.32) on the Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (TWSTRS) severity subscale 12 weeks after injection, compared to trihexyphenidyl. More participants reported adverse events in the trihexyphenidyl treatment group (76 events), compared with the BtA group (31 events); however, the difference in dropouts due to adverse events was inconclusive between groups. There was a decreased risk of dry mouth, and memory problems with BtA, but the differences were inconclusive between groups for the other reported side effects (blurred vision, dizziness, depression, fatigue, pain at injection site, dysphagia, and neck weakness). AUTHORS'

conclusionsWe found very low-certainty evidence that BtA is more effective, better tolerated, and safer than trihexyphenidyl. We found no information on a dose-response relationship with BtA, differences between BtA formulations or different anticholinergics, the utility of electromyography-guided injections, or the duration of treatment effect.

Indexed as

Botulinum Toxins, Type AHumansMuscarinic AntagonistsNeuromuscular AgentsTorticollisTrihexyphenidylabobotulinumtoxinABotulinum Toxins, Type AMuscarinic AntagonistsNeuromuscular AgentsTrihexyphenidyl

Identifiers

PMID33852744
PMCPMC8092669

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.