ReviewToxins2026
Botulinum Toxin Treatment of Notalgia Paresthetica-A Critical Review and Update.
Review in Toxins, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Notalgia paresthetica is a condition characterized by pruritus and pain in the upper back, often associated with skin discoloration in the same area. Through Medline, Google Scholar, and Scopus search engines, we identified reports of eight clinical studies (published up to 1 December 2025) on the subject of botulinum neurotoxin therapy for Notalgia Paresthetica (NP). Only one of the eight studies was double-blind and placebo-controlled. The search strategy included only articles published in English and Spanish, and articles providing basic information such as the type of study, type and dose of the toxin, and results of the treatment. Articles not in English or Spanish, review articles, and articles failing basic information were excluded. A total of 34 patients were found across all studies. The injected toxin in the open-label studies was onabotulinumtoxin-A (Botox), whereas in the blinded study, the investigators used incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin). All open-label studies reported improvement in pruritus, and some reported improvement in pain, whereas the blinded study failed to do so. The possible reasons for this discrepancy between the blinded and the open-label studies are discussed. There is a need for double-blind, placebo-controlled studies with a larger number of patients, preferably using the same neurotoxin that has suggested efficacy in the open-label studies. The novelty of this review is that it represents a comprehensive and critical literature assessment on this topic and that it includes data not present in the previous reviews of this subject.
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.