Botulinum Toxin-A use in Paediatric Hypertonia: Canadian Practice Patterns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aims to assess current practices of Canadian physicians providing botulinum toxin-A (BoNT-A) treatments for children with hypertonia and to contrast these with international "best practice" recommendations, in order to identify practice variability and opportunities for knowledge translation. METHODS: Thirteen Canadian physicians assembled to develop and analyze results of a cross-sectional electronic survey, sent to 50 physicians across Canada. RESULTS: Seventy-eight percent (39/50) of physicians completed the survey. The most frequently identified assessment tools were Gross Motor Function Classification System, Modified Tardieu Scale and neurological examination. Goal-setting tools were infrequently utilized. Common indications for BoNT-A injections and the muscles injected were identified. Significant variability was identified in using BoNT-A for hip displacement associated with hypertonia. The most frequent adverse event reported was localized weakness; 54% reporting this "occasionally" and 15% "frequently". Generalized weakness, fatigue, ptosis, diplopia, dysphagia, aspiration, respiratory distress, dysphonia and urinary incontinence were reported rarely or never. For dosage, 52% identified 16 Units/kg body weight of Botox® as maximum. A majority (64%) reported a maximum 400 Units for injection at one time. For localization, electrical stimulation and ultrasound were used infrequently (38% and 19% respectively). Distraction was the most frequently used pain-management technique (64%). CONCLUSIONS: Canadian physicians generally adhere to international best practices when using BoNT-A to treat paediatric hypertonia. Two knowledge-translation opportunities were identified: use of individualized goal setting prior to BoNT-A and enhancing localization techniques. Physicians reported a good safety profile of BoNT-A in children.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".