Cargando…

A comparative assessment of three formulations of botulinum toxin A for facial rhytides: a systematic review and meta-analyses

BACKGROUND: Botulinum toxin A is a commonly used biological medication in the field of facial plastic surgery. Currently, there are three distinct formulations of botulinum toxin A, each with their purported benefits and advantages. However, there is considerable confusion as to the relative efficac...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bonaparte, James P, Ellis, David, Quinn, Jason G, Ansari, Mohammed T, Rabski, Jessica, Kilty, Shaun J
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3686697/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23763852
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-2-40
_version_ 1782273817931939840
author Bonaparte, James P
Ellis, David
Quinn, Jason G
Ansari, Mohammed T
Rabski, Jessica
Kilty, Shaun J
author_facet Bonaparte, James P
Ellis, David
Quinn, Jason G
Ansari, Mohammed T
Rabski, Jessica
Kilty, Shaun J
author_sort Bonaparte, James P
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Botulinum toxin A is a commonly used biological medication in the field of facial plastic surgery. Currently, there are three distinct formulations of botulinum toxin A, each with their purported benefits and advantages. However, there is considerable confusion as to the relative efficacy and side-effects associated with each formulation. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to systematically assess published studies and perform a meta-analysis to determine if there is a significant advantage of any of the individual formulations. METHODS/DESIGN: A systematic literature search was performed for all relevant English language randomized controlled trials using Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), MEDLINE, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, European Union (EU) Clinical Trials Register, Cochrane Library databases of clinical trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Inclusion criteria included any randomized controlled trial (RCT) that assessed the use of botulinum toxin for cosmetic purposes. The included articles were also analyzed for bias using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing the risk of bias in RCTs. DISCUSSION: The results of this review will provide clinicians with an unbiased, high level of evidence of the comparative efficacy of individual preparations of botulinum toxin A. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD4201200337
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3686697
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-36866972013-06-20 A comparative assessment of three formulations of botulinum toxin A for facial rhytides: a systematic review and meta-analyses Bonaparte, James P Ellis, David Quinn, Jason G Ansari, Mohammed T Rabski, Jessica Kilty, Shaun J Syst Rev Protocol BACKGROUND: Botulinum toxin A is a commonly used biological medication in the field of facial plastic surgery. Currently, there are three distinct formulations of botulinum toxin A, each with their purported benefits and advantages. However, there is considerable confusion as to the relative efficacy and side-effects associated with each formulation. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to systematically assess published studies and perform a meta-analysis to determine if there is a significant advantage of any of the individual formulations. METHODS/DESIGN: A systematic literature search was performed for all relevant English language randomized controlled trials using Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), MEDLINE, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, European Union (EU) Clinical Trials Register, Cochrane Library databases of clinical trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Inclusion criteria included any randomized controlled trial (RCT) that assessed the use of botulinum toxin for cosmetic purposes. The included articles were also analyzed for bias using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing the risk of bias in RCTs. DISCUSSION: The results of this review will provide clinicians with an unbiased, high level of evidence of the comparative efficacy of individual preparations of botulinum toxin A. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD4201200337 BioMed Central 2013-06-13 /pmc/articles/PMC3686697/ /pubmed/23763852 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-2-40 Text en Copyright © 2013 Bonaparte et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Protocol
Bonaparte, James P
Ellis, David
Quinn, Jason G
Ansari, Mohammed T
Rabski, Jessica
Kilty, Shaun J
A comparative assessment of three formulations of botulinum toxin A for facial rhytides: a systematic review and meta-analyses
title A comparative assessment of three formulations of botulinum toxin A for facial rhytides: a systematic review and meta-analyses
title_full A comparative assessment of three formulations of botulinum toxin A for facial rhytides: a systematic review and meta-analyses
title_fullStr A comparative assessment of three formulations of botulinum toxin A for facial rhytides: a systematic review and meta-analyses
title_full_unstemmed A comparative assessment of three formulations of botulinum toxin A for facial rhytides: a systematic review and meta-analyses
title_short A comparative assessment of three formulations of botulinum toxin A for facial rhytides: a systematic review and meta-analyses
title_sort comparative assessment of three formulations of botulinum toxin a for facial rhytides: a systematic review and meta-analyses
topic Protocol
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3686697/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23763852
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-2-40
work_keys_str_mv AT bonapartejamesp acomparativeassessmentofthreeformulationsofbotulinumtoxinaforfacialrhytidesasystematicreviewandmetaanalyses
AT ellisdavid acomparativeassessmentofthreeformulationsofbotulinumtoxinaforfacialrhytidesasystematicreviewandmetaanalyses
AT quinnjasong acomparativeassessmentofthreeformulationsofbotulinumtoxinaforfacialrhytidesasystematicreviewandmetaanalyses
AT ansarimohammedt acomparativeassessmentofthreeformulationsofbotulinumtoxinaforfacialrhytidesasystematicreviewandmetaanalyses
AT rabskijessica acomparativeassessmentofthreeformulationsofbotulinumtoxinaforfacialrhytidesasystematicreviewandmetaanalyses
AT kiltyshaunj acomparativeassessmentofthreeformulationsofbotulinumtoxinaforfacialrhytidesasystematicreviewandmetaanalyses
AT bonapartejamesp comparativeassessmentofthreeformulationsofbotulinumtoxinaforfacialrhytidesasystematicreviewandmetaanalyses
AT ellisdavid comparativeassessmentofthreeformulationsofbotulinumtoxinaforfacialrhytidesasystematicreviewandmetaanalyses
AT quinnjasong comparativeassessmentofthreeformulationsofbotulinumtoxinaforfacialrhytidesasystematicreviewandmetaanalyses
AT ansarimohammedt comparativeassessmentofthreeformulationsofbotulinumtoxinaforfacialrhytidesasystematicreviewandmetaanalyses
AT rabskijessica comparativeassessmentofthreeformulationsofbotulinumtoxinaforfacialrhytidesasystematicreviewandmetaanalyses
AT kiltyshaunj comparativeassessmentofthreeformulationsofbotulinumtoxinaforfacialrhytidesasystematicreviewandmetaanalyses