Does the method of botulinum neurotoxin injection for limb spasticity affect outcomes? A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review randomized controlled trials of botulinum neurotoxin for limb spasticity to determine whether different injection techniques affect spasticity outcomes. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials electronic databases were searched for English language human randomized controlled trials from 1990 to 13 May 2016. Studies were assessed in duplicate for data extraction and risk of bias using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale and graded according to Sackett's levels of evidence. RESULTS: Nine of 347 studies screened met selection criteria. Four categories of botulinum neurotoxin injection techniques were identified: (1) injection localization technique; (2) injection site selection; (3) injectate volume; (4) injection volume and site selection. There is level 1 evidence that: ultrasound, electromyography, and electrostimulation are superior to manual needle placement; endplate injections improve outcomes vs. multisite quadrant injections; motor point injections are equivalent to multisite injections; high volume injections are similar to low volume injections; and high volume injections distant from the endplate are more efficacious than low volumes closer to the endplate. CONCLUSION: Level 1 evidence exists for differences in treatment outcomes using specific botulinum neurotoxin injection techniques. Findings are based on single studies that require independent replication and further study.
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 | 0.006 | 0.107 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".