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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.285
Threshold uncertainty score0.697

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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