↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Considerations on patient-related outcomes with the use of botulinum toxins: is switching products safe?

Overview of attention for article published in Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
Title
Considerations on patient-related outcomes with the use of botulinum toxins: is switching products safe?
Published in
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, February 2016
DOI 10.2147/tcrm.s99239
Pubmed ID
Authors

Avram Fraint, Padmaja Vittal, Cynthia Comella

Abstract

Botulinum toxin (BoNT) is the treatment of choice for many neurologic movement disorders, including blepharospasm, hemifacial spasm, and cervical dystonia. There are two serotypes approved for use by the US Food and Drug Administration: three brands of serotype A and one of serotype B. Many attempts have been made at establishing dose conversion ratios between brands and serotypes. This review focuses on the existing data comparing different formulations of the same BoNT serotypes as well as that comparing different serotypes with one another. We focus on existing data regarding switching from one formulation or serotype to another and will also discuss the issue of immunogenicity of BoNT. With this information as a foundation, recommendations on safety of switching agents are addressed. Literature review searching PubMed and Google Scholar using the search terms "switching botox", "dosing equivalency in botox", and "comparing botox". Overall, there are many studies that demonstrate the efficacy and safety of each of the brands of BoNTs used in clinical practice. However, determination of dosing equivalencies among these brands and serotypes is complex with inconsistencies among the studies. When switching from one brand to another, the clinician should be aware of these issues, and not make the assumption that such ratios exist. Tailoring the dosage of each brand of BoNT to the clinical situation is the most prudent treatment strategy rather than focusing closely on conversion factors and concerns for immunogenicity.

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 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 16%
Other 2 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 11%
Professor 2 11%
Student > Bachelor 1 5%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 7 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 42%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Unspecified 1 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 6 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 09 February 2018.
All research outputs
#7,277,395
of 25,582,611 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#357
of 1,308 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#109,176
of 407,552 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#10
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,582,611 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,308 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 407,552 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.