Trial reportJournal of cosmetic dermatology2026
Is Ready-To-Use AbobotulinumtoxinA More Effective Than OnabotulinumtoxinA for Glabellar Lines? A Randomized, Controlled, Triple-Blinded Clinical Trial.
Trial report in Journal of cosmetic dermatology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMost commercially available botulinum toxin A (BoNT-A) formulations are lyophilized or vacuum-dried powders requiring reconstitution. Recently a ready-to-use formulation (RTUaboBoNT-A) has been introduced. Although its efficacy in reducing glabellar lines has been reported, comparative data with powder onabotulinumtoxinA (OnaBoNT-A) remain limited.
aimsTo evaluate the efficacy, durability, and safety of RTUaboBoNT-A compared with OnaBoNT-A for moderate to severe glabellar wrinkles:
methodsForty women (25-50 years) were randomly allocated to receive either OnaBoNT-A (n = 20) or RTUaboBoNT-A (n = 20) at equivalent doses in the procerus and corrugator muscles. Outcomes included Electromyography activity (EMG), Merz 5-point glabellar lines scale, FACE-Q satisfaction scores, perceived age and pain intensity (VAS). Assessments were performed at baseline and 1, 2-, 3-, 4- and 5-months post-injection. Statistical analysis included two-way repeated-measures ANOVA with Bonferroni's post hoc, chi-squared tests and independent Student's t-tests.
resultsNo significant intergroup differences were observed in EMG activity of the assessed muscles across follow-ups (p > 0.05). Glabellar lines severity was comparable between groups at rest and maximum contraction throughout the study (p > 0.05). Higher satisfaction scores were observed at 2-months in the OnaBoNT-A group (p = 0.01). Pain during injection was greater with RTUaboBoNT-A (p = 0.02). No intergroup differences were found in perceived age (p > 0.05).
conclusionThe RTUaboBoNT-A demonstrated similar efficacy, durability, and safety profile to OnaBoNT-A for the treatment of glabellar lines. With minor differences in satisfaction and injection disconfort.
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.