The use of botulinum toxin for spasticity in people with spinal cord injury: a scoping review.
Alessandro Zadra, Daniel Feller, Irene Maini and 2 others
PMID 41697266WHAT IT FOUND
Evidence for botulinum toxin in spinal cord injury spasticity is sparse and inconsistent.
Most studies lack clear definitions, goal setting, or injection details. Clinicians should use consensus definitions, involve patients in goal setting, and employ instrumental guidance for injections.
Key findings
01Most included studies did not cite a definition of spasticity, and those that did varied widely, with Lance's definition being the most common.
02There was substantial heterogeneity in how treatment goals were set, with many studies failing to report a goal-setting process or patient involvement.
03Only three experimental studies had adequate design for assessing efficacy, but they were limited by small samples, lack of SCI-specific subgroup data, or poor reporting of dosage.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The review did not assess risk of bias, which is inherent to scoping reviews. Only English-language studies were included. The small number of experimental studies and lack of detailed SCI-specific subgroup data prevent firm conclusions on efficacy. Heterogeneity in outcome measures and reporting prevents data pooling.
Declared interests
The authors declare no conflicts of interest. They used ChatGPT for language editing only.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the lack of pooled efficacy data as evidence that botulinum toxin is ineffective. Rather, the current literature is too heterogeneous and poorly reported to draw clear conclusions about which patients benefit most or how best to deliver the treatment.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →