MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4296162229 · doi:10.1097/prs.0000000000009742

Effectiveness of Botulinum Toxin Type A Injection on Scars: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2022· review· en· W4296162229 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Man-Yun Li, Wen-Kuan Chiu, Hsian-Jenn Wang, I‐Ming Chen, Jinhua Chen, Yu Ko, Chiehfeng Chen

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic & Reconstructive Surgery · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatologic Treatments and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVisual analogue scaleRandomized controlled trialScarsSalineStrictly standardized mean differenceMeta-analysisSurgeryAnesthesiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.031
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.144
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlastic & Reconstructive SurgerySame topicDermatologic Treatments and ResearchFrench-language works237,207