MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6989600830

Botulinum toxin A treatment in facial palsy synkinesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

2023· article· en· W6989600830 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueData Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicGerman History and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSynkinesisBotulinum toxinSystematic reviewGuidelineOtorhinolaryngologyFacial paralysisMEDLINEPalsy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Synkinesis is defined as involuntary movements accompanying by voluntary movements and can occur during the aftermath of peripheral facial palsy, causing functional, aesthetic and psychological problems in the patient. Botulinum toxin A (BTX-A) is frequently used as a safe and effective treatment; however, there is no standardized guideline for the use of BTX-A in synkinesis. The purpose of this article is to review and summarize studies about the BTX-A treatment of synkinesis in patients with a history of peripheral facial palsy; including given dosages, injection sites and time intervals between injections. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multi-database systematic literature search was performed in October 2020 using the following databases: Pubmed, Embase, Medline, and The Cochrane Library. Two authors rated the methodological quality of the included studies independently using the 'Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale' for non-randomised studies' (NOS). RESULTS: Four-thousand-five-hundred-and-nineteen articles were found of which 34 studies met the inclusion criteria, in total comprising 1314 patients. Most studies were assessed to be of 'fair' to 'good' methodological quality. The Cohen's kappa (between author FJ and AS) was 0.78. Thirty-one studies investigated the reported dosage injected, 17 studies reported injection location and 17 studies investigated time intervals. A meta-analysis was performed for three studies comprising 106 patients, on the effects of BTX-A treatment on the Synkinesis Assessment Questionnaire (SAQ) scores. The mean difference was 11.599 (range 9.422-13.766), p < 0.01. However, due to inconsistent reporting of data of the included studies, no relationship with the dosage and location could be assessed. CONCLUSIONS: Many treatment strategies for synkinesis exist, consisting of varying BTX-A brands, dosages, time intervals and different injection locations. Moreover, the individual complaints are very specific, which complicates creating a standardized chemodenervation treatment protocol. The BTX-A treatment of long-term synkinesis is very individual and further studies should focus on a patient-tailored treatment instead of trying to standardize treatment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.735
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueData Archiving and Networked Services (DANS)Same topicGerman History and SocietyFrench-language works237,207