↓ Skip to main content

RimabotulinumtoxinB in sialorrhea: systematic review of clinical trials

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Clinical Movement Disorders, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 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
RimabotulinumtoxinB in sialorrhea: systematic review of clinical trials
Published in
Journal of Clinical Movement Disorders, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40734-017-0055-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Khashayar Dashtipour, Roongroj Bhidayasiri, Jack J. Chen, Bahman Jabbari, Mark Lew, Diego Torres-Russotto

Abstract

The aim of this study was to examine the efficacy, safety and dosing practices of rimabotulinumtoxinB (BoNT-B) for the treatment of patients with sialorrhea based on a systematic review of clinical trials. A systematic literature review was performed to identify randomized controlled trials and other comparative clinical studies of BoNT-B for the treatment of sialorrhea published in English between January 1999 and December 2015. Medical literature databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE) were searched and a total of 41 records were identified. Of these, six primary publications that evaluated BoNT-B for the treatment of sialorrhea met criteria and were included in the final data report. Total BoNT-B doses ranged from 1500 to 4000 units for sialorrhea. Most of the studies in sialorrhea showed statistically significant benefits of BoNT-B versus placebo (range 4-19.2 weeks). BoNT-B was generally well tolerated across the individual studies; most adverse events reported were considered unrelated to treatment. Adverse events considered potentially associated with BoNT-B included: dry mouth, change in saliva thickness, mild transient dysphagia, mild weakness of chewing and diarrhea. BoNT-B significantly reduces sialorrhea at doses between 1500 and 4000 units. The relatively mild dose-dependent adverse events suggest both direct and remote toxin effects.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 20%
Other 6 13%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Researcher 4 9%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 12 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 13%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Psychology 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 15 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. 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 12 November 2021.
All research outputs
#1,022,053
of 22,952,268 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Movement Disorders
#2
of 64 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,820
of 317,061 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Movement Disorders
#1
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,952,268 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 64 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 317,061 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them