Botulinum Toxin Intramuscular Injections for Neck Pain: A Systematic Review and Metaanalysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of intramuscular botulinum toxin type A (BoNT-A) injections on pain, function/disability, global perceived effect, and quality of life (QOL) in adults with neck pain (NP). METHODS: We searched Central, Medline, and Embase databases up to June 2010. A minimum of 2 authors independently selected articles, abstracted data, and assessed risk of bias and clinical applicability. We estimated standard mean differences (SMD) with 95% CI, relative risks (RR), and performed metaanalyses (SMD(p)) using a random-effects model for nonheterogeneous data. The approach of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation working group summarizes the quality of evidence. RESULTS: We selected 14 trials. High-quality evidence suggested BoNT-A was no better than saline at 4 weeks [4 trials/183 participants; SMD(p) -0.21 (95% CI -0.50 to 0.07)] and 6 months for chronic NP. Moderate-quality evidence showed a similar effect for subacute/chronic whiplash-associated disorder (WAD) on pain [4 trials/122 participants; SMD(p) -0.21 (95% CI -0.57 to 0.15)], disability, and QOL. Very low-quality evidence indicated BoNT-A combined with exercise and analgesics was not significant for chronic NP reduction at 4 weeks [3 trials/114 participants; SMD(p) -0.08 (95% CI -0.45 to 0.29)] but was at 6 months [2 trials/43 participants; SMD(p) -0.66 (95% CI -1.29 to -0.04)]. CONCLUSION: Current evidence does not confirm a clinically or statistically significant benefit of BoNT-A used alone on chronic NP in the short term or on subacute/chronic WAD pain, disability, and QOL. Larger trials, subgroups, and predictors of responses defined a priori (to facilitate selection of patients most likely to benefit) and factorial designs to explore BoNT as an adjunct treatment to physiotherapeutic exercise and analgesics are needed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.025 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".