Effectiveness and Safety of Botulinum Toxin Type A in Children with Musculoskeletal Conditions: What Is the Current State of Evidence?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children with musculoskeletal conditions experience muscle weakness, difficulty walking and limitations in physical activities. Standard treatment includes physiotherapy, casting, and surgery. The use of botulinum toxins appears as a promising treatment on its own, but usually as an adjunct to other treatment modalities and as an alternative to surgery. The objectives were to establish the evidence on the effectiveness, safety and functional outcome of BTX-A in children with musculoskeletal conditions. A literature search using five electronic databases identified 24 studies that met our inclusion criteria. Two randomized clinical trials were included; most studies were case studies with small sample sizes and no control group. Improvements in gait pattern, function, range of motion, reduction of co-contractions, and avoidance of surgical procedures were found following BTX-A injections. Adverse events were not reported in 10 studies, minor adverse events were reported in 13 children and there were no severe adverse events. Additional doses appear safe. BTX-A is a promising treatment adjunct in improving functional outcomes in children with musculoskeletal conditions. Future studies including larger samples, longer follow-up periods and a comparison group are required to provide evidence on the effectiveness and safety of this drug in children with musculoskeletal conditions.
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 | 0.019 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".