↓ Skip to main content

A systematic review: efficacy of botulinum toxin in walking and quality of life in post-stroke lower limb spasticity

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
78 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
124 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
A systematic review: efficacy of botulinum toxin in walking and quality of life in post-stroke lower limb spasticity
Published in
Systematic Reviews, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13643-017-0670-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anupam Datta Gupta, Wing Hong Chu, Stuart Howell, Subhojit Chakraborty, Simon Koblar, Renuka Visvanathan, Ian Cameron, David Wilson

Abstract

Improved walking is one of the highest priorities in people living with stroke. Post-stroke lower limb spasticity (PSLLS) impedes walking and quality of life (QOL). The understanding of the evidence of improved walking and QOL following botulinum toxin (BoNTA) injection is not clear. We performed a systematic review of the randomized control trials (RCT) to evaluate the effectiveness of BoNTA injection on walking and QOL in PSLLS. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, ProQuest Thesis and Dissertation checks, Google Scholar, WHO International Clinical Trial Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov , Cochrane, and ANZ and EU Clinical Trials Register for RCTs looking at improvement in walking and QOL following injection of BoNTA in PSLLS. The original search was carried out prior to 16 September 2015. We conducted an additional verifying search on CINHAL, EMBASE, and MEDLINE (via PubMed) from 16 September 2015 to 6 June 2017 using the same clauses as the previous search. Methodological quality of the individual studies was critically appraised using Joanna Briggs Institute's instrument. Only placebo-controlled RCTs looking at improvement in walking and QOL were included in the review. Of 2026 records, we found 107 full-text records. Amongst them, we found five RCTs qualifying our criteria. No new trials were found from the verifying search. Two independent reviewers assessed methodological validity prior to inclusion in the review using Joanna Briggs Institute's appraisal instrument. Two studies reported significant improvement in gait velocity (p = 0.020) and < 0.05, respectively. One study showed significant improvement in 2-min-walking distance (p < 0.05). QOL was recorded in one study without any significant improvement. Meta-analysis of reviewed studies could not be performed because of different methods of assessing walking ability, small sample size with large confidence interval and issues such as lack of power calculations in some studies. Findings from our systematic and detailed study identify the need for a well-designed RCT to adequately investigate the issues highlighted. This review could not conclude there was sufficient evidence to support or refute improvement on walking or QOL following BoNTA injection. Reasons for this are discussed, and methods for future RCTs are developed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 124 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 124 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 16 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 11%
Student > Master 12 10%
Other 10 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Other 26 21%
Unknown 36 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 13%
Engineering 6 5%
Neuroscience 5 4%
Psychology 4 3%
Other 13 10%
Unknown 43 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 10 January 2018.
All research outputs
#15,826,194
of 23,509,982 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,634
of 2,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#272,820
of 444,389 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#47
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,509,982 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,043 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 444,389 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.