↓ Skip to main content

Botulinum toxin for motor and phonic tics in Tourette's syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
139 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 for motor and phonic tics in Tourette's syndrome
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012285.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sanjay Pandey, Prachaya Srivanitchapoom, Richard Kirubakaran, Brian D Berman

Abstract

Gilles de la Tourette syndrome, or Tourette's syndrome, is defined as the presence of both motor and vocal (phonic) tics for more than 12 months, that manifest before the age of 18 years, in the absence of secondary causes. Treatment of motor and phonic tics is difficult and challenging. To determine the safety and effectiveness of botulinum toxin in treating motor and phonic tics in people with Tourette's syndrome, and to analyse the effect of botulinum toxin on premonitory urge and sensory tics. We searched the Cochrane Movement Disorders Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and two trials registers to 25 October 2017. We reviewed reference lists of relevant articles for additional trials. We considered all randomised, controlled, double-blind studies comparing botulinum toxin to placebo or other medications for the treatment of motor and phonic tics in Tourette's syndrome for this review. We sought both parallel group and cross-over studies of children or adults, at any dose, and for any duration. We followed standard Cochrane methods to select studies, assess risk of bias, extract and analyse data. All authors independently abstracted data onto standardized forms; disagreements were resolved by mutual discussion. Only one randomised placebo-controlled, double-blind cross-over study met our selection criteria. In this study, 20 participants with motor tics were enrolled over a three-year recruitment period; 18 (14 of whom had a diagnosis of Tourette's syndrome) completed the study; in total, 21 focal motor tics were treated. Although we considered most bias domains to be at low risk of bias, the study recruited a small number of participants with relatively mild tics and provided limited data for our key outcomes. The effects of botulinum toxin injections on tic frequency, measured by videotape or rated subjectively, and on premonitory urge, are uncertain (very low-quality evidence). The quality of evidence for adverse events following botulinum toxin was very low. Nine people had muscle weakness following the injection, which could have led to unblinding of treatment group assignment. No data were available to evaluate whether botulinum injections led to immunoresistance to botulinum. We are uncertain about botulinum toxin effects in the treatment of focal motor and phonic tics in select cases, as we assessed the quality of the evidence as very low. Additional randomised controlled studies are needed to demonstrate the benefits and harms of botulinum toxin therapy for the treatment of motor and phonic tics in patients with Tourette's syndrome.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 139 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 139 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 15 11%
Student > Master 14 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 8%
Other 8 6%
Researcher 8 6%
Other 30 22%
Unknown 53 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 8%
Neuroscience 8 6%
Psychology 6 4%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Other 19 14%
Unknown 57 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 24 August 2023.
All research outputs
#2,985,986
of 23,566,295 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,780
of 12,743 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,169
of 444,678 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#117
of 219 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,566,295 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,743 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 444,678 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 219 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.