ReviewToxins2026
Early Treatment of Post-Stroke Spasticity with Botulinum Toxin Type A: Myth or Reality?
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Post-stroke spasticity may interfere with function and rehabilitation and contribute to pain, contracture, care burden, and disability. Botulinum toxin type A is an established focal treatment for post-stroke spasticity, but it is often introduced in the chronic phase, when persistent involuntary muscle overactivity may coexist with secondary musculoskeletal complications. This opinion paper critically examines whether early treatment with botulinum toxin should be considered a myth or an emerging clinical reality. Current evidence from meta-analyses, randomized trials, observational cohorts, and pooled analyses was reviewed with particular attention to treatment timing, treatment triggers, functional outcomes, and prevention of secondary complications. The literature supports the clinical usefulness of earlier treatment in appropriately selected patients, particularly for reducing focal involuntary muscle overactivity and resistance to passive movement, delaying symptomatic progression, slowing contracture development, and reducing pain-related complications. However, a consistent additional effect on active motor recovery has not been demonstrated, and evidence for participation and long-term functional independence remains less definitive. Moreover, "early" is heterogeneously defined across studies, ranging from the first weeks to the first year after stroke. We therefore propose moving from a rigid time-based concept of "early" treatment toward timely, target- and goal-guided intervention, integrating botulinum toxin with rehabilitation when a clinically relevant and modifiable focal neural treatment target emerges. To operationalize this concept, we propose a pragmatic set of clinical variables including the neural treatment target, its clinical impact and trajectory, passive musculoskeletal status, pain and care burden, motor recovery context, rehabilitation goals, and patient priorities.
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.