Effectiveness of Botulinum Toxin Type A Injection on Scars: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Scars can cause pain, long-term physical dysfunction, and psychological harm. Botulinum toxin type A (BoNT-A) is one treatment choice for scars, but further evidence is needed to confirm its efficacy. METHODS: This systematic review included randomized controlled trials that investigated the effectiveness of BoNT-A on scars. The mean and standard deviation for the Vancouver Scar Scale, Stony Brook Scar Evaluation Scale, visual analog scale for appearance evaluation, visual analog scale for scar pain evaluation, and scar width were extracted for subgroup analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-one randomized controlled trials were included. The BoNT-A group had a lower Vancouver Scar Scale score than the saline group (standardized mean difference, -0.73; 95 percent CI, -1.12 to -0.35; p = 0.0002) but a higher score than the steroid group (standardized mean difference, 0.85; 95 percent CI, 0.27 to 1.43; p = 0.004). The BoNT-A group exhibited a higher Stony Brook Scar Evaluation Scale grade than the saline group (standardized mean difference, 1.42; 95 percent CI, 0.83 to 2.00; p < 0.00001). The visual analog scale for appearance evaluation revealed higher scores in the BoNT-A group than in the saline group (standardized mean difference, 1.14; 95 percent CI, 0.69 to 1.60; p < 0.00001). As for pain evaluation, the BoNT-A group had a lower visual analog scale score than the steroid group (standardized mean difference, -2.57; 95 percent CI, -4.40 to -0.74; p = 0.006). Furthermore, scar width was significantly shorter in the BoNT-A group than in the control group (standardized mean difference, -1.11; 95 percent CI, -1.38 to -0.83; p < 0.00001). CONCLUSIONS: BoNT-A is more effective in treating scars than saline, although steroids may exhibit higher potency. Therefore, it can be considered an alternative in patients not amenable to steroid treatment. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, II.
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 | 0.024 | 0.082 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.095 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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; 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".