Treatment of Palmar Hyperhidrosis With Needle Injection Versus Low-Pressure Needle-Free Jet Injection of OnabotulinumtoxinA: An Open-Label Prospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: OnabotulinumtoxinA (OnabotA) injections are effective to treat palmar hyperhidrosis (HH) but are quite painful. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate efficacy and pain of OnabotA injection using a needle-free jet apparatus compared with the traditional needle injection to treat palmar HH. METHODS: Twenty patients were recruited for a prospective open-label study. Their right hand was injected with 1% lidocaine with a jet injector, after which OnabotA was injected with a needle. The left hand was injected with OnabotA directly using the jet injector. Pain scores were recorded for both techniques. At 0, 1, 3, and 6 months, severity of palmar HH was evaluated with the Hyperhidrosis Disease Severity Scale (HDSS). RESULTS: One point reduction in the HDSS score at 1 month showed no statistical difference between both hands (p = .451). However, the HDSS score at 1 month from baseline dropped by 1.6 for the hand treated with traditional needle injection of OnabotA compared with 1.25 for the hand treated with jet injections (p = .031). There was no statistical difference in the pain on injection with both techniques (p = .1925). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates effective and relatively painless use of a low-pressure jet injector for OnabotA in palmar HH.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".