ReviewToxins2022
How Does Botulinum Toxin Inhibit Itch?
Review in Toxins, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dose-Dependent Effects of Botulinum Toxin Type A on Prevention of Postoperative Scars in Various Regions in the Body: A Prospective, Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2025Trial
- Investigating the dual nature ofLe infezioni in medicina · 2026Review
- Using botulinum toxin A to treat postherpetic itch.Archives of dermatological research · 2023Article
- Introduction to theToxins · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Two decades after reports of the anti-pruritic effects of botulinum neurotoxins (BoNTs), there is still no approved product for the anti-itch indication of BoNTs, and most clinical case reports still focus on the off-label use of BoNTs for various itchy conditions. Few randomized clinical trials have been conducted with controversial results, and the beneficial effects of BoNTs against itch are mainly based on case studies and case series. These studies are valuable in presenting the potential application of BoNTs in chronic pruritic conditions, but due to the nature of these studies, they are categorized as providing lower levels of evidence or lower grades of recommendation. To obtain approval for the anti-pruritic indication of BoNTs, higher levels of evidence are required, which can be achieved through conducting large-scale and well-designed studies with proper control groups and established careful and reliable primary and secondary outcomes. In addition to clinical evidence, presenting the mechanism-based antipruritic action of BoNTs can potentially strengthen, accelerate, and facilitate the current efforts towards further investments in accelerating the field towards the potential approval of BoNTs for itchy conditions. This review, therefore, aimed to provide the state-of-the-art mechanisms underlying the anti-itch effect of BoNTs from basic studies that resemble various clinical conditions with itch as a hallmark. Evidence of the neuronal, glial, and immune modulatory actions of BoNTs in reducing the transmission of itch are presented, and future potential directions are outlined.
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.