Does the treatment of spastic equinovarus deformity following stroke with botulinum toxin increase gait velocity? A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While botulinum toxin-A (BT-A) has been used to treat lower-limb focal spasticity successfully, its effect on characteristics of gait has not been well defined. The objective of this systematic review was to establish the treatment effect associated with the use of BT-A for equinovarus to improve gait velocity following stroke, using a meta-analytic technique. Relevant studies were identified through a literature search encompassing the years 1985 to November 2009. Studies were included if (i) the sample was composed of adult subjects recovering from either first or subsequent stroke, presenting with spastic equinovarus deformity of the ankle preventing full active dorsiflexion, and (ii) subjects who received BT-A were compared with subjects who had received a placebo, or (iii) in the absence of a placebo-controlled condition, subject had received BT-A and was assessed before and after treatment. A standardized mean difference (SMD) ± standard error and 95% confidence interval (CI) for gait velocity between the treatment and control group was calculated for each study, using Hedges's g, and the results pooled. Eight trials, five randomized controlled trials, and three single group intervention studies were included. Data representing 228 subjects were available for pooled analysis. Treatment with BT-A was associated with a small improvement in gait velocity (Hedge's g = 0.193 ± 0.081; 95% CI: 0.033 to 0.353, P < 0.018) representing an increase of 0.044 meters/s. The use of BT-A for lower-limb post-stroke equinovarus because of spasticity was associated with a small, but statistically significant increase in gait velocity.
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 | 0.013 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".