Impact of abobotulinumtoxinA on the clinical features of cervical dystonia in routine practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The efficacy and safety of abobotulinumtoxinA in the management of cervical dystonia has been established in randomized, controlled trials that use a selected trial population. In this meta-analysis of observational data, we evaluated the real-life effectiveness of abobotulinumtoxinA as delivered in routine clinical practice. Meta-analysis of patient-level data for adult patients with cervical dystonia treated with abobotulinumtoxinA from three prospective, multicenter, observational studies (NCT01314365, NCT00833196 and NCT01753349). We report data for patients treated with abobotulinumtoxinA over one injection cycle at 181 neurology centers in 35 countries. CD clinical features as assessed by Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (TWSTRS) Total scores (N = 920) significantly reduced by a mean [95%CI] of −12.9 [−13.9, −11.8] points at Week 4 (N = 449) and −3.2 [−3.8, −2.7] points at the end of the injection cycle (N = 890). All three TWSTRS domains (symptom severity, disability and pain) contributed to the overall improvement. Patients were generally content with symptom control at peak effect of the treatment cycle, with 86% reporting overall satisfaction. Findings from this meta-analysis of observational studies confirm the effectiveness of abobotulinumtoxinA in routine practice. Despite inclusion of a broader population sample, the magnitude of improvements observed is consistent with that seen in the pivotal, randomized controlled trials.
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 | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".