Comparison Between Dysport and Prosigne in the Treatment of Cervical Dystonia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Cervical dystonia is the most frequent type of primary focal dystonia and treatment with botulinum toxin (BTX) is currently the criterion standard. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we compared the safety and efficacy of the following 2 formulations of BTXs available in Brazil: abobotulinumtoxin A (Dysport) and Lanzhou BTX type A (Prosigne), during a follow-up of 13 months. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, randomized, double blind trial with 1 group being treated with Dysport and the other with Prosigne. RESULTS: Fourteen patients were randomized to receive Dysport and 20 patients to receive Prosigne, each patient was followed during 13 months and received 5 injections of BTX in this period. The dose equivalency used was 3 U of Dysport for 1 U of Prosigne. After each treatment session, we assessed improvement with the Clinician Interview-Based Impression of Change scale and asked about adverse effects and duration of improvement. We also used the Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (TWSTRS) before and after the first and fifth treatment sessions. After the first injection, mean TWSTRS values reduced 12.78 points in the Dysport group and 9.98 in the Prosigne group (P = 0.38). After the last injection, the reduction in TWSTRS values was 11.87 points for Dysport and 11.35 points for Prosigne (P = 0.86). CONCLUSIONS: Our data showed similar efficacy and safety profiles when comparing both toxins in the treatment of cervical dystonia.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".