↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Botulinum toxin type A products are not interchangeable: a review of the evidence

Overview of attention for article published in Biologics: Targets & Therapy, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#9 of 196)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 news outlet
3 tweeters


67 Dimensions

Readers on

84 Mendeley
Botulinum toxin type A products are not interchangeable: a review of the evidence
Published in
Biologics: Targets & Therapy, October 2014
DOI 10.2147/btt.s65603
Pubmed ID

Mitchell F Brin, Charmaine James, John Maltman, Mitchell Brin


Botulinum toxin type A (BoNTA) products are injectable biologic medications derived from Clostridium botulinum bacteria. Several different BoNTA products are marketed in various countries, and they are not interchangeable. Differences between products include manufacturing processes, formulations, and the assay methods used to determine units of biological activity. These differences result in a specific set of interactions between each BoNTA product and the tissue injected. Consequently, the products show differences in their in vivo profiles, including preclinical dose response curves and clinical dosing, efficacy, duration, and safety/adverse events. Most, but not all, published studies document these differences, suggesting that individual BoNTA products act differently depending on experimental and clinical conditions, and these differences may not always be predictable. Differentiation through regulatory approvals provides a measure of confidence in safety and efficacy at the specified doses for each approved indication. Moreover, the products differ in the amount of study to which they have been subjected, as evidenced by the number of publications in the peer-reviewed literature and the quantity and quality of clinical studies. Given that BoNTAs are potent biological products that meet important clinical needs, it is critical to recognize that their dosing and product performance are not interchangeable and each product should be used according to manufacturer guidelines.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 84 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 17 20%
Researcher 16 19%
Student > Postgraduate 10 12%
Student > Master 9 11%
Student > Bachelor 8 10%
Other 15 18%
Unknown 9 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 30%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 12%
Neuroscience 6 7%
Other 12 14%
Unknown 10 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 15 December 2017.
All research outputs
of 12,299,992 outputs
Outputs from Biologics: Targets & Therapy
of 196 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 226,939 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biologics: Targets & Therapy
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,299,992 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 196 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 226,939 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 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