Trial reportJournal of cosmetic dermatology2025
Comparing Ready-to-Use and Powder AbobotulinumtoxinA for Glabellar Lines: A Randomized, Controlled, Triple-Blinded Clinical Trial.
Trial report in Journal of cosmetic dermatology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Is Ready-To-Use AbobotulinumtoxinA More Effective Than OnabotulinumtoxinA for Glabellar Lines? A Randomized, Controlled, Triple-Blinded Clinical Trial.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2026Trial
- Comparing Ready-to-Use and Powder AbobotulinumtoxinA for Glabellar Lines: A Randomized, Controlled, Triple-Blinded Clinical Trial.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2025Trial
- Objective Assessment of the Onset of RelabotulinumtoxinA in the Elevation of the Eyebrow and Its Clinical Implications.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBotulinum toxin A (BoNT-A) is the most used procedure to treat glabellar lines; however, limited data exist about the effectiveness of ready-to-use BoNT-A (RTUaboBoNT-A) for this indication.
aimsThis study compared the efficacy, durability, and safety of RTUaboBoNT-A for moderate and severe glabellar wrinkles.
methodsThis randomized triple-blinded trial included 38 male volunteers aged between 25 and 50 years. Participants were randomly divided into two groups: abobotulinumtoxinA (aboBoNT-A, n = 18) and RTUaboBoNT-A (n = 20). Groups received 10 U for procerus muscle and 20 U for the corrugator muscle. Assessed variables included, electromyography activity (EMG), Merz 5-point glabellar lines scale, FACE-Q appraisal for lines between the eyebrows and Visual Analogue Scale for pain intensity. Assessments were performed before and 1, 2, 3, and 4 months after injections. For differences in EMG and satisfaction scores, the two-way repeated-measures ANOVA and Bonferroni's post hoc analyses were conducted. Wrinkle severity scores were analyzed with the chi-squared test.
resultsInter-group comparisons revealed no significant differences in EMG scores in all assessed periods for the corrugator supercili (p = 0.11) and the procerus muscles (p = 0.93); for severity of glabellar lines, no significant differences were also found in all follow-ups for rest (p = 0.737) and contracted position (p = 0.390), as well as for satisfaction with the treatments. However, the RTUaboBoNT-A group presented higher levels of pain intensity during the injection procedure (p = 0.01).
conclusionThe RTUaboBoNT-A and aboBoNT-A are comparable in efficacy, durability, and safety.
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.