↓ Skip to main content

Clinical Practice: Evidence-Based Recommendations for the Treatment of Cervical Dystonia with Botulinum Toxin

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
65 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
104 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
Clinical Practice: Evidence-Based Recommendations for the Treatment of Cervical Dystonia with Botulinum Toxin
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, February 2017
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2017.00035
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maria Fiorella Contarino, Joost Van Den Dool, Yacov Balash, Kailash Bhatia, Nir Giladi, Johannes H. Koelman, Annemette Lokkegaard, Maria J. Marti, Miranda Postma, Maja Relja, Matej Skorvanek, Johannes D. Speelman, Evelien Zoons, Joaquim J. Ferreira, Marie Vidailhet, Alberto Albanese, Marina A. J. Tijssen

Abstract

Cervical dystonia (CD) is the most frequent form of focal dystonia. Symptoms often result in pain and functional disability. Local injections of botulinum neurotoxin are currently the treatment of choice for CD. Although this treatment has proven effective and is widely applied worldwide, many issues still remain open in the clinical practice. We performed a systematic review of the literature on botulinum toxin treatment for CD based on a question-oriented approach, with the aim to provide practical recommendations for the treating clinicians. Key questions from the clinical practice were explored. Results suggest that while the beneficial effect of botulinum toxin treatment on different aspects of CD is well established, robust evidence is still missing concerning some practical aspects, such as dose equivalence between different formulations, optimal treatment intervals, treatment approaches, and the use of supportive techniques including electromyography or ultrasounds. Established strategies to prevent or manage common side effects (including excessive muscle weakness, pain at injection site, dysphagia) and potential contraindications to this treatment (pregnancy and lactation, use of anticoagulants, neurological comorbidities) should also be further explored.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 104 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 13%
Other 10 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 9%
Student > Master 9 9%
Student > Postgraduate 8 8%
Other 18 17%
Unknown 36 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 27%
Neuroscience 11 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Psychology 2 2%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 44 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 09 February 2018.
All research outputs
#6,469,399
of 22,953,506 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#4,253
of 11,843 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,071
of 311,648 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#46
of 135 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,953,506 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,843 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 311,648 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 135 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.