The Efficacy of Botulinum Toxin Type A (BTA) in the Treatment of Hypertrophic Scars and Keloids: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypertrophic scars cause significant physical and emotional discomfort. Botulinum toxin type A (BTA) has shown promising outcomes in reducing scar formation. Research suggested its effectiveness in managing hypertrophic scars and keloids. This systematic review and meta-analysis were reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The included studies involved patients with hypertrophic scars treated with BTA. Five databases were searched from inception to August 2024. Studies were screened and selected by two independent reviewers. Data on study design, patient demographics, and interventions was extracted. The risk of bias (ROB) was assessed using the ROB revised tool developed by Cochrane (ROB2). Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan Web (The Cochrane Collaboration, London, UK) with a random-effects model due to high heterogeneity, calculating mean differences for the primary and secondary outcomes. Outcomes included Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) scores, scar thickness, vascularity, pliability, and pigmentation. The systematic review identified 182 records from five databases. The screening process resulted in seven studies included in the final analysis after assessment for eligibility. The efficacy of BTA in treating hypertrophic scars and keloids was assessed. The meta-analysis showed that BTA significantly improved VSS scores, with a pooled mean difference of -1.69 (P = 0.01). However, BTA did not show a statistically significant effect on reducing scar height/thickness or improving vascularity. Scar pliability was significantly improved by BTA, with a pooled mean difference of -0.76 (P = 0.002), while there was no significant effect on pigmentation. High heterogeneity was observed across the studies. BTA could be used as an effective treatment for the components of hypertrophic scars and keloids, especially regarding their pliability and improving scar quality. However, for functions such as the change in scar height, vascularity, and pigmentation, more research is still required among larger RCTs. Future research should focus on refining the treatment regimens and the mode of action of BTA to the scar tissue.
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 | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.044 | 0.007 |
| 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".