MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967264251 · doi:10.1097/wno.0000000000000110

A Direct Comparison of OnabotulinumtoxinA (Botox) and IncobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin) in the Treatment of Benign Essential Blepharospasm

2014· article· en· W1967264251 on OpenAlexaff
Julien Saad, Alain Gourdeau

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuro-Ophthalmology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBotulinum Toxin and Related Neurological Disorders
Canadian institutionsHôpital de l'Enfant-Jésus
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnalysis of varianceMedicineRepeated measures designBlepharospasmBotulinum neurotoxinPost-hoc analysisAnesthesiaPhysical therapyBotulinum toxinInternal medicineMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Benign essential blepharospasm (BEB) is characterized by progressive involuntary contractions of the protractor muscles, sometimes leading to a debilitating closure of the lids. It is currently treated with the injection of botulinum neurotoxin A (BoNT/A). The purpose of this study was to compare 2 BoNT/A preparations (i.e., Xeomin and Botox) in the treatment of BEB. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, double-blinded split-face technique in 48 patients already treated by Botox for BEB. Patients received the same medication to either side of the face for 4 injections, and were then evaluated using subjective and objective measures. Blepharospasm Disability Index (BSDI) and Jankovic Rating Scale (JRS) were assessed using a repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) and paired t test. Patient preference and objective comparison of residual orbicularis strength and spasm were compared using a multinomial logistic regression model, a repeated-measures ANOVA, and a paired t test. RESULTS: A paired t test showed no preference between Xeomin and Botox (P = 0.7205) and demonstrated a tendency toward not having a preference for either medication (P = 0.0301 vs Botox and P = 0.0039 vs Xeomin). The regression model showed no effect of time on patient preference (P = 0.4217). The ANOVA for BSDI scores did not reveal any difference between the 2 medications as compared with baseline (P = 0.8161), nor did it demonstrate an effect of time on BSDI scores (P = 0.6108). A paired t test found no difference between the 2 scores (P = 0.1909) at baseline. There was no difference in JRS scores for either medication when compared with baseline (P = 0.2314), nor was there an effect of time on such scores (P = 0.4951). There was also no difference between the 2 medications according to paired t test (P = 0.3224) at baseline. Baseline residual orbicularis strength was similar between the 2 medications (paired t test; P = 0.3228). ANOVA shows an effect of time on orbicularis strength (P = 0.0055), but no difference was seen at any of the 5 visits (P > 0.05). Baseline spasm scores were similar between Botox and Xeomin (paired Student t test; P = 0.3228). The ANOVA shows no difference between both medications at any point in time (P = 0.4408), and that time had no effect on the efficacy of either treatment (P = 0.3268). CONCLUSION: No difference between Xeomin and Botox was detected in either subjective or objective measures for the treatment of BEB.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations37
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neuro-OphthalmologySame topicBotulinum Toxin and Related Neurological DisordersFrench-language works237,207