↓ Skip to main content

Botulinum toxin type B for cervical dystonia

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 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 B for cervical dystonia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004315.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Raquel E Marques, Gonçalo S Duarte, Filipe B Rodrigues, Mafalda Castelão, Joaquim Ferreira, Cristina Sampaio, A Peter Moore, João Costa

Abstract

This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004, and previously updated in 2009 (no change in conclusions). Cervical dystonia is a frequent and disabling disorder characterised by painful involuntary head posturing. Botulinum toxin type A (BtA) is usually considered the first line therapy for this condition, although botulinum toxin type B (BtB) is an alternative option. To compare the efficacy, safety and tolerability of botulinum toxin type B (BtB) versus placebo in people with cervical dystonia. We identified studies for inclusion in the review using the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, reference lists of articles and conference proceedings, last run in October 2015. We ran the search from 1977 to 2015. The search was unrestricted by language. Double-blind, parallel, randomised, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) of BtB versus placebo in adults with cervical dystonia. Two independent authors assessed records, selected included studies, extracted data using a paper pro forma and evaluated the risk of bias. We resolved disagreements by consensus or by consulting a third author. We performed one meta-analysis for the comparison BtB versus placebo. We used random-effects models when there was heterogeneity and fixed-effect models when there was no heterogeneity. In addition, we performed pre-specified subgroup analyses according to BtB doses and BtA previous clinical responsiveness. The primary efficacy outcome was overall improvement on any validated symptomatic rating scale. The primary safety outcome was the number of participants with any adverse event. We included four RCTs of moderate overall methodological quality, including 441 participants with cervical dystonia. Three studies excluded participants known to have poorer response to Bt treatment, therefore including an enriched population with a higher probability of benefiting from Bt treatment. None of the trials were independently funded. All RCTs evaluated the effect of a single Bt treatment session using doses between 2500 U and 10,000 U. BtB was associated with an improvement of 14.7% (95% CI 9.8% to 19.5) in the patients' baseline clinical status as assessed by investigators, with reduction of 6.8 points in the Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (TWSTRS-total score) at week 4 after injection (95% CI 4.54 to 9.01). Mean difference (MD) in TWSTRS-pain score at week 4 was 2.20 (95% CI 1.25 to 3.15). Overall, both participants and clinicians reported an improvement of subjective clinical status. There were no differences between groups in the withdrawals rate due to adverse events or in the proportion of participants with adverse events. However, BtB-treated patients had a 7.65 (95% CI 2.75 to 21.32) and a 6.78 (95% CI 2.42 to 19.05) increased risk of treatment-related dry mouth and dysphagia, respectively. Statistical heterogeneity between studies was low to moderate for most outcomes. All tested dosages were efficacious against placebo without clear-cut evidence of a dose-response gradient. However, duration of effect (time until return to baseline TWSTRS-total score) and risk of dry mouth and dysphagia were greater in the subgroup of participants treated with higher BtB doses. Subgroup analysis showed a higher improvement with BtB among BtA-non-responsive participants, although there were no differences in the effect size between the BtA-responsive and non-responsive subgroups. A single BtB-treatment session is associated with a significant and clinically relevant reduction of cervical dystonia impairment including severity, disability and pain, and is well tolerated, when compared with placebo. However, BtB-treated patients are at an increased risk of dry mouth and dysphagia. There are no data from RCTs evaluating the effectiveness and safety of repeated BtB injection cycles. There are no RCT data to allow us to draw definitive conclusions on the optimal treatment intervals and doses, usefulness of guidance techniques for injection, and impact on quality of life.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 6%
Unknown 17 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 128%
Unspecified 20 111%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 94%
Student > Bachelor 15 83%
Researcher 10 56%
Other 28 156%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 250%
Unspecified 28 156%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 67%
Psychology 5 28%
Neuroscience 5 28%
Other 18 100%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 20 August 2018.
All research outputs
#2,997,586
of 13,396,180 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,562
of 10,585 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,798
of 266,042 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#113
of 189 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,396,180 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 77th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,585 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 266,042 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 189 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.