ArticleBrazilian journal of medical and biological research = Revista brasileira de pesquisas medicas e biologica2021
Efficacy and safety of tolperisone versus baclofen among Chinese patients with spasticity associated with spinal cord injury: a non-randomized retrospective study.
Article in Brazilian journal of medical and biological research = Revista brasileira de pesquisas medicas e biologica, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical management of complications after chronic spinal cord injury: a review of recent advances.Annals of medicine · 2026Review
- Prospects of microRNAs as therapeutic biomarkers in non-small cell lung cancer.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2023Review
- Promising Advances in Pharmacotherapy for Patients with Spinal Cord Injury-A Review of Studies Performed In Vivo with Modern Drugs.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Screen-printed sensors for efficient potentiometric analysis of tolperisone hydrochloride in presence of its co-formulated drugs.BMC chemistry · 2022Article
- Spinal Cord Injury Provoked Neuropathic Pain and Spasticity, and Their GABAergic Connection.Neurospine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There are many medications available to treat spasticity, but the tolerability of medications is the main issue for choosing the best treatment. The objectives of this study were to compare the efficacy and adverse effects of tolperisone compared to baclofen among patients with spasticity associated with spinal cord injury. Patients received baclofen plus physical therapy (BAF+PT, n=135) or tolperisone plus physical therapy (TOL+PT, n=116), or physical therapy alone (PT, n=180). The modified Ashworth scale score, the modified Medical Research Council score, the Barthel Index score, and the Disability Assessment scale score were improved (P<0.05 for all) in all the patients at the end of 6 weeks compared to before interventions. After 6 weeks, the overall coefficient of efficacy of the intervention(s) in the BAF+PT, TOL+PT, and PT groups were 1.15, 0.45, and 0.05, respectively. The patients of the BAF+PT group reported asthenia, drowsiness, and sleepiness and those of the TOL+PT group reported dyspepsia and epigastric pain as adverse effects. When comparing drug interventions to physical therapy alone, both baclofen plus physical therapy and tolperisone plus physical therapy played a significant role in the improvement of daily activities of patients. Nonetheless, baclofen plus physical therapy was tentatively effective. Tolperisone plus physical therapy was slightly effective. In addition, baclofen caused adverse effects related to the sedative manifestation (Level of Evidence: III; Technical Efficacy Stage: 4).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.