SynthesisFrontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland)2026
Add-on benefits of botulinum toxin type A in combination or sequential therapies for scar management: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Botulinum toxin type A (BoNT-A) has been increasingly incorporated into multimodal scar management strategies as an adjunctive treatment. However, the additive benefits of BoNT-A when used in combination or sequential therapeutic approaches remain unclear due to limited and heterogeneous evidence. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify studies evaluating BoNT-A as an add-on intervention in combination or sequential scar management strategies. Eligible studies compared BoNT-A plus standard scar management with control interventions alone. Primary outcomes included validated scar assessment scores, namely the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) and the Stony Brook Scar Evaluation Scale (SBSES). Pooled analyses were performed using mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. The pooled analysis suggested that BoNT-A add-on therapy significantly improved scar appearance, with a Mean Difference (MD) of -1.80 for the VSS score and 1.46 for the SBSES score. However, this represents low-certainty evidence. Conclusion: Current low-certainty evidence suggests that BoNT-A may provide a potential adjunctive benefit for improving scar appearance, particularly in mitigating local mechanical tension. However, because these pooled estimates reflect a composite of heterogeneous treatment paradigms, the findings are suggestive rather than confirmatory and strictly exploratory. Clinical application should remain cautious and individualized, pending further high-quality, standardized RCTs. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420261354679, PROSPERO CRD420261354679.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.