Comparative Evaluation of Intralesional Injection of Botulinum Toxin Type A
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Pathological scars resulting from burns can impair both aesthetic and physical functions, often causing chronic pruritus. Thus, this study aimed to compare the effectiveness of intralesional botulinum toxin type A (BTX-A) and triamcinolone acetonide (TAC) in reducing pruritus and scar thickness caused by burns. METHODS: This single-blind clinical trial was conducted on 60 patients experiencing post-burn pruritus. Patients selected a scar area with the highest degree of pruritus, which was divided into two equal parts. BTX-A was injected into one half and TAC into the other. Pruritus severity was assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS), the pain was assessed using the numeric rating scale (NRS), and scar thickness and the Vancouver scar scale (VSS) scores were at four time points. RESULTS: The study involved 60 patients with a mean age of 35.72 years (range: 21-64 years). The results indicated that BTX-A was more effective than TAC in reducing scar thickness and pruritus. Changes in scar thickness from V1 to V4 demonstrated that BTX-A achieved more significant scar reduction than TAC (P=0.0287), and pruritus severity decreased significantly in the BTX-A group (P=0.0482). CONCLUSION: Based on the results, BTX-A treatment is more effective than TAC in reducing pruritus and scar thickness in patients with chronic post-burn pruritus. Further studies with larger sample sizes and extended follow-up periods are required to confirm these findings.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".