ReviewAesthetic plastic surgery2026
Botulinum Toxin A Myths, Evidence, and Global Media Narratives.
Review in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionBotulinum Neurotoxin A (BoNT-A) is clinically safe and effective, yet public discourse remains saturated with myths. This review investigates how misconceptions are produced and sustained within peer-reviewed literature and traditional media.
methodsA narrative synthesis of English-language publications (2000-2024) from PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science (peer-reviewed) and ProQuest, Factiva, LexisNexis (media) was conducted. AI-assisted search, clustering (UMAP-HDBSCAN), and VADER sentiment analysis were integrated. Inter-rater reliability (κ = 0.87-0.94) and AI-human agreement (89.5%) were established. "Botox" is used as a generic term for all BoNT-A products consistent with public and social media discourse.
resultsOf 513 sources (186 academic, 327 media), myths clustered into eight categories. Media coverage showed strongly negative sentiment (mean - 0.58), while academic literature remained neutral (71% neutral). Safety/toxicity myths were 3.2 times more frequent in media (χ
conclusionA quantifiable asymmetry exists between scientific evidence and media framing of BoNT-A. Misinformation is culturally embedded, emotionally charged, and event driven. Bridging this gap requires pre-consultation educational tools, scripted clinical responses, and cross-disciplinary media engagement. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
42429953What 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.