↓ Skip to main content

Botulinum toxin type A in the treatment of lower limb spasticity in cerebral palsy

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2000
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
104 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
179 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Botulinum toxin type A in the treatment of lower limb spasticity in cerebral palsy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2000
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001408
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ruth Ade‐Hall, Peter Moore

Abstract

To determine whether botulinum toxin (BtA) is an effective and safe treatment for lower limb spasticity in children with cerebral palsy. Functional outcomes are of particular interest. Studies for inclusion in the review were identified using the Movement Disorders Review Group trials register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, pharmaceutical company databases, communication with other researchers in the field and reference lists of papers found using above search strategies. Studies were considered eligible for inclusion in the review if they evaluated the efficacy of BtA for the treatment of leg spasticity in children with cerebral palsy. They must have been randomised and include a concurrent control group receiving another intervention. A paper pro forma was used to collect data from the included studies using double extraction by two independent reviewers. Each trial was assessed for internal validity by each of the two reviewers. Meta-analysis was not possible because results were presented in an incompatable form. A Peto odds ratio was calculated where this was appropriate, otherwise a descriptive summary of the results of the individual studies was compiled. Three eligible studies were found each with small numbers of subjects. They were short term, used single injection sessions with follow-up of between 4 and 26 weeks. One study (Koman), of twelve ambulant children, compared BtA with injection of a placebo and found non-significant improvements in gait in the BtA group compared to the placebo group. Two studies (Corry, Flett) compared BtA with the use of casts. Each included 20 ambulant children and found improvements in gait, range of ankle movement and muscle tone in both the BtA and cast groups. However there were no significant differences between the groups in either trial. One of these trials (Flett) also assessed motor function using the gross motor function measure (GMFM) (Russell, 1989) and found significant improvements in each group compared to baseline but no significant differences between the groups. The other trial (Corry) performed 3D gait analysis on those children able to co-operate. Maximal plantar flexion and maximal dorsiflexion during walking were both found to be significantly greater in the BtA group compared to the cast group. In all other dimensions there were no significant differences between the groups. This systematic review has not revealed strong controlled evidence to support or refute the use of BtA for the treatment of leg spasticity in cerebral palsy. Ongoing randomised controlled trials are likely to provide useful data on the short term effects of BtA for leg spasticity. Future research should also assess the longer term use of BtA. Ideally studies should be pragmatic in their approach to dose and distribution of toxin to reflect practise. Outcome measures assessing function and disability would give the most useful information.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 179 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 178 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 32 18%
Student > Bachelor 23 13%
Researcher 22 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 7%
Other 12 7%
Other 34 19%
Unknown 43 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 65 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 28 16%
Neuroscience 6 3%
Sports and Recreations 4 2%
Social Sciences 4 2%
Other 20 11%
Unknown 52 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 February 2021.
All research outputs
#8,571,053
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,070
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,718
of 111,496 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#13
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 111,496 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.