SynthesisToxins2026
From Neurophysiological Mechanisms to Rehabilitation After Botulinum Toxin Type A in Post-Stroke Spasticity.
Synthesis 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBotulinum toxin type A (BoNT-A) is globally recognized as a standard treatment for post-stroke spasticity (PSS), although its secondary mechanisms remain underinvestigated. The objective of this study was to investigate the neurophysiological mechanisms underlying BoNT-A treatment in PSS and explore their implications for mechanism-based rehabilitation.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO registration number ID: CRD420261352230) of 39 studies involving 760 patients was conducted on 18 August 2026, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase were systematically searched using the PICO framework. Where possible, quantitative data were pooled according to predefined neurophysiological constructs, including passive stretch-evoked activity, voluntary activation of the injected muscle, compound muscle action potential (CMAP), reciprocal motor control, normalized Hmax/Mmax, and specific spinal inhibitory mechanisms.
resultsQuantitative synthesis demonstrated construct-specific neurophysiological changes following BoNT-A treatment. Passive stretch-evoked activity showed the largest pooled effect (Hedges'
conclusionsThe findings support a predominantly peripheral mechanism of BoNT-A while suggesting possible secondary changes within spinal and supraspinal motor control pathways. However, the certainty of evidence was low to very low. These neurophysiological effects provide a rationale for individualized, mechanism-based rehabilitation during the post-injection therapeutic window, although higher-quality evidence is required to confirm this framework.
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.