Adverse Clinical Effects of Botulinum Toxin Intramuscular Injections for Spasticity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The adverse events (AEs) with botulinum toxin type-A (BoNTA), used for indications other than spasticity, are widely reported in the literature. However, the site, dose, and frequency of injections are different for spasticity when compared to the treatment for other conditions and hence the AEs may be different as well. The objective of this study was to summarize the AEs reported in Canada and systematically review the AEs with intramuscular botulinum toxin injections to treat focal spasticity. METHODS: Data were gathered from Health Canada (2009-2013) and major electronic databases. RESULTS: In a 4 year period, 285 AEs were reported. OnabotulinumtoxinA (n=272 events): 68% females, 53% serious, 18% hospitalization, and 8% fatalities. The type of AEs reported were - muscle weakness (19%), oropharyngeal (14%), respiratory (14%), eye related (8%), bowel/bladder related (8%), and infection (5%). IncobotulinumtoxinA (n=13): 38% females, 62% serious, and 54% hospitalization. The type of AEs reported were - muscle weakness (15%), oropharyngeal (15%), respiratory (38%), eye related (23%), bowel/bladder related (15%), and infection (15%). Commonly reported AEs in the literature were muscle weakness, pain, oropharyngeal, bowel/bladder, blood circulation, neurological, gait, and respiratory problems. CONCLUSION: While BoNTA is useful in managing spasticity, future studies need to investigate the factors that can minimize AEs. A better understanding of the underlying mechanisms of the AEs can also improve guidelines for BoNTA administration and enhance outcomes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".