↓ Skip to main content

Botulinum toxin type A products are not interchangeable: a review of the evidence

Overview of attention for article published in Biologics: Targets & Therapy, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#24 of 286)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
2 X users
patent
2 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
92 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
112 Mendeley
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 products are not interchangeable: a review of the evidence
Published in
Biologics: Targets & Therapy, October 2014
DOI 10.2147/btt.s65603
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mitchell F Brin, Charmaine James, John Maltman

Abstract

Botulinum toxin type A (BoNTA) products are injectable biologic medications derived from Clostridium botulinum bacteria. Several different BoNTA products are marketed in various countries, and they are not interchangeable. Differences between products include manufacturing processes, formulations, and the assay methods used to determine units of biological activity. These differences result in a specific set of interactions between each BoNTA product and the tissue injected. Consequently, the products show differences in their in vivo profiles, including preclinical dose response curves and clinical dosing, efficacy, duration, and safety/adverse events. Most, but not all, published studies document these differences, suggesting that individual BoNTA products act differently depending on experimental and clinical conditions, and these differences may not always be predictable. Differentiation through regulatory approvals provides a measure of confidence in safety and efficacy at the specified doses for each approved indication. Moreover, the products differ in the amount of study to which they have been subjected, as evidenced by the number of publications in the peer-reviewed literature and the quantity and quality of clinical studies. Given that BoNTAs are potent biological products that meet important clinical needs, it is critical to recognize that their dosing and product performance are not interchangeable and each product should be used according to manufacturer guidelines.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 112 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 19%
Other 17 15%
Student > Postgraduate 12 11%
Student > Master 10 9%
Student > Bachelor 9 8%
Other 20 18%
Unknown 23 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 29%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 10%
Neuroscience 6 5%
Other 16 14%
Unknown 23 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 07 March 2023.
All research outputs
#2,567,282
of 25,391,066 outputs
Outputs from Biologics: Targets & Therapy
#24
of 286 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,937
of 264,232 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biologics: Targets & Therapy
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,391,066 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 286 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
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 264,232 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them