Should botulinum toxin A injections be repeated in children with cerebral palsy? A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this study was to determine the effects of repeat botulinum toxin A (BoNT-A) injections in children with spastic cerebral palsy (CP) on the basis of a best evidence synthesis. METHOD: This study included 13 original articles after searching the literature to retrieve information. We used the critical review form produced by McMaster University to determine the methodological quality of the studies, and then confirmed the levels of evidence from Sackett. The studies were also evaluated using the International Classification of Function, Disability and Health - Children and Youth Version (ICF-CY). RESULTS: A total of 893 children with spastic CP who had been administered repeat BoNT-A injections were evaluated. The evidence level was II in four of the thirteen studies, III in four studies, and IV in five studies. The McMaster review form score was 14 in two studies, 13 in four studies, and 12 in seven studies. The results showed that repeat BoNT-A may be a safe and an effective approach. The first two injections/one repeat especially relieve spasticity and improve fine and gross motor activities. INTERPRETATION: Future studies to investigate the effectiveness of repeat BoNT-A in children with spastic CP may be planned within the framework of the ICF-CY to include well-designed randomized controlled trials and those conducted on larger homogenous groups.
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 | 0.010 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".