Practice Patterns of Physicians Using Adjunct Therapies with Botulinum Toxin Injection for Spasticity: A Canadian Multicenter Cross‐Sectional Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adjunct therapies are nonpharmacological treatments used with botulinum toxin (BoNT) injection that may improve spasticity outcomes. It has been suggested that physicians consider adjunct therapies as a part of comprehensive spasticity management. It is unclear which adjunct therapies are used by physicians in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To determine physician practice patterns and perceptions of use of adjunct therapies following BoNT injection for limb spasticity. DESIGN: Cross-sectional national survey of current clinical practice using a 22-item questionnaire developed by the authors. SETTING: Not applicable. PARTICIPANTS: Survey respondents were physicians actively administering BoNT injections for limb spasticity management across Canada (N = 48). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Types of adjunct therapies used by physicians; physician opinions on barriers to adjunct therapy use, patient preferences, and future research priorities. RESULTS: Most physicians prescribe home stretching programs, home active exercise programs, and splinting; however, many physicians perceive that these same adjunct therapies are unwanted by patients. A minority of physicians prescribe electrical stimulation (ES), transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), casting, and extracorporeal shockwave therapy; financial limitations and perceived lack of evidence were identified as barriers to their use. Significantly more physicians practicing in academic settings compared with nonacademic, community, and private practice settings used functional ES (59% vs 11%) and TENS (41% vs 0%) as adjunct therapies (P < .05). Research priorities included determining the effectiveness of immediate postinjection application of adjunct therapies (eg, injected muscle activation with ES or stretching) and nutraceuticals. CONCLUSIONS: Canadian physicians frequently use adjunct therapies in combination with BoNT injection to treat spasticity. Financial and time constraints are identified as barriers to implementation of adjunct therapies that are currently supported by research, and patient preferences may also affect compliance. Future research should focus on adjunct therapies that overcome these barriers.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".