Observational studyEuropean journal of neurology2025
Real-World Evaluation of Botulinum Toxin A in Focal Peripheral Neuropathic Pain: Longitudinal Outcomes.
Observational study in European journal of neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Transcriptional Profiling of Botulinum Neurotoxin Type A-Related Molecular Components in Primary Human Schwann Cells.Toxins · 2026Article
- Real-World Evaluation of Botulinum Toxin A in Focal Peripheral Neuropathic Pain: Longitudinal Outcomes.European journal of neurology · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNeuropathic pain (NP) is frequently resistant to conventional treatments. Botulinum toxin type A (BT-A) is a recommended option for focal peripheral NP, but the dynamics of its effect in real-life conditions remain poorly characterized.
objectiveTo assess BT-A efficacy in a real-world study of patients with focal peripheral NP, over a 1-year follow-up period.
methodsIn this prospective, observational study, adult patients with chronic focal peripheral NP refractory to standard therapies were treated with BT-A in two French pain centers. Injections were individualized and administered at approximately 3-month intervals. The primary outcome was the patient-reported percentage of improvement since the first injection, assessed at each follow-up visit (Cycles 2-5). Secondary outcomes included the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), average pain intensity over the previous 8 days, and exploratory analysis of response trajectories distinguishing early (≥ 30% improvement at Cycle 3) from late responders.
resultsEighty-two patients received ≥ 2 BT-A cycles. Mean self-reported improvement increased from 30.7% at Cycle 2 to 51.0% at Cycle 5 (p < 0.001). PGIC and pain intensity also showed significant improvements. Among 59 patients evaluable at Cycle 3, 66% were early responders; late responders showed significant benefit after the third injection. BT-A was well tolerated: 63.6% reported end-of-dose effects, and 25.8% experienced only mild, transient adverse events.
conclusionThis real-life study over 1 year suggests that BT-A provides progressive and sustained benefit in focal peripheral NP, supporting continued treatment beyond two cycles.
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.