Epidemiology of major paediatric trauma in a European Country - trends of a decade.

OBJECTIVES: This study investigates causes, characteristics and temporal trends of paediatric major trauma over a 10-year period and assesses potential preventive areas. METHODS: Single-centre retrospective study of paediatric trauma patients admitted to a Paediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU) in a tertiary university hospital in Europe with a level 1 paediatric trauma centre, from 2009 to 2019. Paediatric major trauma patients were defined as patients aged < 18 years with Injury Severity Score > 12, admitted for intensive care for more than 24 h following trauma. Demographic, social and clinical information, including place and mechanism of trauma, injury pattern, pre-hospital and in-hospital procedures, and length of stay in PICU was extracted from PICU medical records. RESULTS: Total 358 patients included (age 11 ± 4,9 years; 67% male); 75% were involved in road traffic accidents: 30% motor vehicle collision, 25% pedestrian, 10% motorcycle and bicycle each. Falls from height injured 19% of children, 4% during sports activities. Main injuries were to head/neck (73%) and extremities (42%). The incidence of major trauma was highest in teenagers and did not show a decreasing trend during the study years. All fatalities (1,7%; n = 6) were related to head/neck injuries. Motor vehicle collisions resulted in higher need for blood transfusion (9 vs. 2 mL/kg, p = 0,006) and the highest ICU-mortality (83%; n = 5). Children in motorcycle accidents had longer ICU length-of-stay (6,4 vs. 4,2 days, p = 0,036). Pedestrians had 25% higher risk of head/neck injuries (RR 1,25; 1,07 - 1,46; p = 0,004), and higher incidence of severe brain injury (46% vs. 34%, p = 0,042). Most children in motor-vehicle/bicycle accidents were not using restraints/protective devices (45%) or were using them inappropriately (13%). CONCLUSIONS: Over the last decade, the absolute numbers of paediatric major trauma did not decrease. Road traffic accidents remain the leading cause of injury and death. Teenagers are at highest risk for severe trauma. Appropriate use of child restraints and protective equipment remain key for prevention.

Case Report of a Neonate Born to a Mother with Severe SARS-CoV-2 Infection under ECMO.

Neonatal SARS-CoV-2 infections are rare and although there is some evidence of vertical transmission, most newborns show no clinical signs or present with only mild clinical symptoms. Fetal survival is reported around 70% in mothers submitted to extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. We present a case of a male newborn born at 29 weeks from a mother under extracorporeal membrane oxygenation due to SARS-CoV-2 infection. There was no evidence of vertical transmission, polymerase chain reaction testing of nasopharyngeal/throat swab and polymerase chain reaction testing of blood sample for SARS-CoV-2 were both negative. On day 2, he developed signs of osteomyelitis of the distal femur extremity, which resolved after six weeks of antibiotic therapy, with no other significant events during admission. This case report depicts the favorable outcome of a live infant born to a mother with severe SARS-CoV-2infection under extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

A infeção neonatal por SARS-CoV-2 é rara e apesar de existir alguma evidência da possibilidade de transmissão vertical, a maioria dos recém-nascidos não manifesta quaisquer sinais clínicos ou apresenta apenas sintomas ligeiros. A sobrevivência fetal é de aproximadamente 70% para grávidas que tenham necessitado de oxigenação por membrana extracorporal. Apresentamos um caso de um recém-nascido do sexo masculino, nascido às 29 semanas de idade gestacional de uma mãe sob oxigenação por membrana extracorporal, devido a infeção por SARS-CoV-2. Não se verificou evidência de transmissão vertical, e a reação em cadeia da polimerase de amostras nasofaríngeas e sanguíneas foi negativa. No segundo dia de vida desenvolveu sinais compatíveis com osteomielite da extremidade distal do fémur, resolvidos após seis semanas de antibioticoterapia, sem outras intercorrências relevantes durante a admissão. Este caso revela uma evolução clínica favorável de um recém-nascido, filho de mãe com infeção grave por SARS-CoV-2 sob oxigenação por membrana extracorporal.

Botulinum toxin type A versus anticholinergics for cervical dystonia.

BACKGROUND: This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2005. Cervical dystonia is the most common form of focal dystonia and is a highly disabling movement disorder, characterised by involuntary, usually painful, head posturing. Currently, botulinum toxin type A (BtA) is considered the first line therapy for this condition. Before BtA, anticholinergics were the most widely accepted treatment. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of BtA versus anticholinergic drugs in adults with cervical dystonia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Movement Disorders' Trials Register to June 2003, screened reference lists of articles and conference proceedings to September 2018, and searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase, with no language restrictions, to July 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: Double-blind, parallel, randomised trials (RCTs) of BtA versus anticholinergic drugs in adults with cervical dystonia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed records, selected included studies, extracted data using a paper pro forma, and evaluated the risk of bias and quality of the evidence. We resolved disagreements by consensus or by consulting a third review author. If enough data had been available, we were to perform meta-analyses using a random-effects model for the comparison of BtA versus anticholinergic drugs to estimate pooled effects and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). The primary efficacy outcome was improvement in cervical dystonia-specific impairment. The primary safety outcome was the proportion of participants with any adverse event. MAIN RESULTS: We included one RCT of moderate overall risk of bias (as multiple domains were at unclear risk of bias), which included 66 BtA-naive participants with cervical dystonia. Two doses of BtA (Dysport; week 0 and 8; mean dose 262 to 292 U) were compared with daily trihexyphenidyl (up to 24 mg daily). The trial was sponsored by the BtA producer. BtA reduced cervical dystonia severity by an average of 2.5 points (95% CI 0.68 to 4.32) on the Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (TWSTRS) severity subscale 12 weeks after injection, compared to trihexyphenidyl. More participants reported adverse events in the trihexyphenidyl treatment group (76 events), compared with the BtA group (31 events); however, the difference in dropouts due to adverse events was inconclusive between groups. There was a decreased risk of dry mouth, and memory problems with BtA, but the differences were inconclusive between groups for the other reported side effects (blurred vision, dizziness, depression, fatigue, pain at injection site, dysphagia, and neck weakness). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found very low-certainty evidence that BtA is more effective, better tolerated, and safer than trihexyphenidyl. We found no information on a dose-response relationship with BtA, differences between BtA formulations or different anticholinergics, the utility of electromyography-guided injections, or the duration of treatment effect.

Botulinum toxin type A therapy for cervical dystonia.

BACKGROUND: This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2005. Cervical dystonia is the most common form of focal dystonia, and is a highly disabling movement disorder, characterised by involuntary, usually painful, head posturing. Currently, botulinum toxin type A (BtA) is considered the first line therapy for this condition. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of BtA versus placebo, in people with cervical dystonia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Movement Disorders' Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, reference lists of articles, and conference proceedings in July 2020. All elements of the search, with no language restrictions, were last run in July 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: Double-blind, parallel, randomised, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) of BtA versus placebo in adults with cervical dystonia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed records, selected included studies, extracted data using a paper pro forma, and evaluated the risk of bias. We resolved disagreements by consensus or by consulting a third review author. We performed meta-analyses using a random-effects model, for the comparison of BtA versus placebo, to estimate pooled effects and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). We performed preplanned subgroup analyses according to BtA dose used, the BtA formulation used, and the use (or not) of guidance for BtA injections. The primary efficacy outcome was improvement in cervical dystonia-specific impairment. The primary safety outcome was the proportion of participants with any adverse event. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine RCTs, with moderate, overall risk of bias, that included 1144 participants with cervical dystonia. Seven studies excluded participants with poorer responses to BtA treatment, therefore, including an enriched population with a higher probability of benefiting from this therapy. Only one trial was independently funded. All RCTs evaluated the effect of a single BtA treatment session, using doses from 150 U to 500 U of onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox), 120 U to 240 U of incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin), and 250 U to 1000 U of abobotulinumtoxinA (Dysport). BtA resulted in a moderate to large improvement from the participant's baseline clinical status, assessed by the investigators, with a mean reduction of 8.09 points in the Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (TWSTRS total score) at week four after injection (95% CI 6.22 to 9.96; I² = 0%) compared to placebo. This corresponded, on average, to a 18.4% improvement from baseline. The mean difference (MD) in TWSTRS pain subscore at week four was 2.11 (95% CI 1.38 to 2.83; I² = 0%) compared to placebo. Overall, both participants and clinicians reported an improvement of subjective clinical status. It was unclear if dropouts due to adverse events differed (risk ratio (RR) 2.51; 95% CI 0.42 to 14.94; I² = 0%) However, BtA treatment increased the risk of experiencing an adverse event (R) 1.23; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.43; I² = 28%). Neck weakness (14%; RR 3.40; 95% CI 1.19 to 9.71; I² = 15%), dysphagia (11%; RR 3.19; 95% CI 1.79 to 5.70; I² = 0%), and diffuse weakness or tiredness (8%; RR 1.80; 95% CI 1.10 to 2.95; I² = 0%) were the most common treatment-related adverse events. Treatment with BtA resulted in a decreased risk of dropouts. We have moderate certainty in the evidence across all of the aforementioned outcomes, with the exception of subjective assessment and tolerability, in which we have high confidence in the evidence. We found no evidence supporting the existence of a clear dose-response relationship between BtA and improvement in cervical dystonia-specific impairment, a destinction between BtA formulations, or a variation with use of EMG-guided injection for efficacy outcomes. Due to clinical heterogeneity, we did not pool health-related quality of life data, duration of clinical effect, or the development of secondary non-responsiveness. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are moderately certain in the evidence that a single BtA treatment session resulted in a clinically relevant reduction of cervical dystonia-specific impairment, and pain, and highly certain that it is well tolerated, compared with placebo. There is moderate-certainty evidence that people treated with BtA are at an increased risk of developing adverse events, most notably, dysphagia, neckweakness and diffuse weakness or tiredness. There are no data from RCTs evaluating the effectiveness and safety of repeated BtA injection cycles. There is no evidence from RCTs to allow us to draw definitive conclusions on the optimal treatment intervals and doses, the usefulness of guidance techniques for injection, the impact on quality of life, or the duration of treatment effect.

Botulinum toxin type A therapy for blepharospasm.

BACKGROUND: This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2005. Blepharospasm is the second most common form of focal dystonia. It is a disabling disorder, characterised by chronic, intermittent or persistent, involuntary eyelid closure, due to spasmodic contractions of the orbicularis oculi muscles. Currently, botulinum toxin type A (BtA) is considered the first line of therapy for this condition. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of BtA versus placebo in people with blepharospasm. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Movement Disorders' Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, reference lists of included articles, and conference proceedings. We ran all elements of the search, with no language restrictions, in July 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: Double-blind, parallel, randomised, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) of BtA versus placebo in adults with blepharospasm. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed records, selected included studies, extracted data using a paper pro forma, and evaluated the risk of bias. We resolved disagreements by consensus, or by consulting a third review author. We performed meta-analyses using a random-effects model, for the comparison of BtA versus placebo, to estimate pooled effects and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). We did not carry out any prespecified subgroup analyses. The primary efficacy outcome was improvement on any validated symptomatic rating scale. The primary safety outcome was the proportion of participants with any adverse event. MAIN RESULTS: We included three RCTs, assessed at low to moderate overall risk of bias, which randomised 313 participants with blepharospasm. Two studies excluded participants with poorer prior responses to BtA treatment, therefore, they included an enriched population with a higher probability of benefiting from this therapy. All trials were industry-funded. All RCTs evaluated the effect of a single BtA treatment session. BtA resulted in a moderate to large improvement in blepharospasm-specific severity, with a reduction of 0.93 points on the Jankovic Rating Scale (JRS) severity subscale at four to six weeks after injection (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 1.25; I² = 9%) compared to placebo. BtA was also resulted in a moderate to large improvement in blepharospasm-specific disability and blepharospasm-specific involuntary movements at four to six weeks after injection (disability: 0.69 JRS disability subscale points, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.19; I² = 74%; blepharospasm-specific involuntary movements: standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.79, 0.31 to 1.27; I² = 58%) compared to placebo. BtA did not show a risk of adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 1.18, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.60; I² = 0%). However, BtA increased the risk of vision complaints and eyelid ptosis (vision complaints: RR 5.73, 95% CI 1.79 to 18.36; I² = 51%; eyelid ptosis: RR 4.02, 95% CI 1.61 to 10.00; I² = 39%). There was no distinction between BtA and placebo in the number of participants who dropped out of the trial. A single trial estimated the duration of effects to be 10.6 weeks (range 6.1 to 19.1). We found no evidence supporting the existence of a clear dose-response relationship with BtA. We found no data reporting the impact of BtA on health-related quality of life, or the development of secondary non-responsiveness. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are moderately certain that a single BtA treatment resulted in a clinically relevant reduction of blepharospasm-specific severity and disability, and have low certainty that it is well tolerated, when compared with placebo. There is low-certainty evidence that people treated with BtA are not at an increased risk of developing adverse events, though BtA treatment likely increases the risk of visual complaints and eyelid ptosis. There are no data from RCTs evaluating the effectiveness and safety of repeated BtA injection cycles. There is no evidence from RCTs to allow us to draw definitive conclusions on the optimal treatment intervals and doses, or the impact on quality of life.

Botulinum toxin type A therapy for hemifacial spasm.

BACKGROUND: This is an update of a Cochrane Review, first published in 2005. Hemifacial spasm (HFS) is characterised by unilateral, involuntary contractions of the muscles innervated by the facial nerve. It is a chronic disorder, and spontaneous recovery is very rare. The two treatments routinely available are microvascular decompression and intramuscular injections with botulinum toxin type A (BtA). OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of BtA versus placebo in people with HFS. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, reference lists of articles, and conference proceedings in July 2020. We ran the electronic database search, with no language restrictions, in July 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: Double-blind, parallel, randomised, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) of BtA versus placebo in adults with HFS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed records. We planned to select included studies, extract data using a paper pro forma, and evaluate the risk of bias. We resolved disagreements by consensus, or by consulting a third review author. We planned to perform meta-analyses. The primary efficacy outcome was HFS-specific improvement. The primary safety outcome was the proportion of participants with any adverse event. MAIN RESULTS: We found no parallel-group randomised controlled trials comparing BtA and placebo in HFS. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We did not find any randomised trials that evaluated the efficacy and safety of botulinum toxin type A in people with hemifacial spasm, so we are unable to draw any conclusions. Observational data show a strong association between BtA treatment and symptom improvement, and a favourable safety profile. While it is unlikely that future placebo-controlled RCTs will evaluate absolute efficacy and safety, they should address relevant questions for both people with HFS (such as long-term effects, quality of life, and other patient-reported outcomes), and clinicians (such as relative effectiveness of different BtA formulations and schemes of treatment) to better guide clinical practice.).

Botulinum toxin type A therapy for cervical dystonia.

BACKGROUND: This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2005. Cervical dystonia is the most common form of focal dystonia and is a highly disabling movement disorder characterised by involuntary, usually painful, head posturing. Currently, botulinum toxin type A (BtA) is considered the first line therapy for this condition. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of botulinum toxin type A (BtA) versus placebo in people with cervical dystonia. SEARCH METHODS: To identify studies for this review we searched Cochrane Movement Disorders' Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, reference lists of articles and conference proceedings. All elements of the search, with no language restrictions, were run in October 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: Double-blind, parallel, randomised, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) of BtA versus placebo in adults with cervical dystonia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed records, selected included studies, extracted data using a paper pro forma, and evaluated the risk of bias. We resolved disagreements by consensus or by consulting a third review author. We performed meta-analyses using a random-effects model for the comparison of BtA versus placebo to estimate pooled effects and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). In addition, we performed preplanned subgroup analyses according to BtA dose used, the BtA formulation used, and the use or not of guidance for BtA injection. The primary efficacy outcome was improvement in cervical dystonia-specific impairment. The primary safety outcome was the proportion of participants with any adverse event. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight RCTs of moderate overall risk of bias, including 1010 participants with cervical dystonia. Six studies excluded participants with poorer responses to BtA treatment, therefore including an enriched population with a higher probability of benefiting from this therapy. Only one trial was independently funded. All RCTs evaluated the effect of a single BtA treatment session, using doses from 150 U to 236 U of onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox), 120 U to 240 U of incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin), and 250 U to 1000 U of abobotulinumtoxinA (Dysport).BtA was associated with a moderate-to-large improvement in the participant's baseline clinical status as assessed by investigators, with reduction of 8.06 points in the Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (TWSTRS total score) at week 4 after injection (95% CI 6.08 to 10.05; I2 = 0%) compared to placebo, corresponding on average to a 18.7% improvement from baseline. The mean difference (MD) in TWSTRS pain subscore at week 4 was 2.11 (95% CI 1.38 to 2.83; I2 = 0%). Overall, both participants and clinicians reported an improvement of subjective clinical status. There were no differences between groups regarding withdrawals due to adverse events. However, BtA treatment was associated with an increased risk of experiencing an adverse event (risk ratio (RR) 1.19; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.36; I2 = 16%). Dysphagia (9%) and diffuse weakness/tiredness (10%) were the most common treatment-related adverse events (dysphagia: RR 3.04; 95% CI 1.68 to 5.50; I2 = 0%; diffuse weakness/tiredness: RR 1.78; 95% CI 1.08 to 2.94; I2 = 0%). Treatment with BtA was associated with a decreased risk of participants withdrawing from trials. We have moderate certainty in the evidence across all of the aforementioned outcomes.We found no evidence supporting the existence of a clear dose-response relationship with BtA, nor a difference between BtA formulations, nor a difference with use of EMG-guided injection.Due to clinical heterogeneity, we did not pool data regarding health-related quality of life, duration of clinical effect, or the development of secondary non-responsiveness. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We have moderate certainty in the evidence that a single BtA treatment session is associated with a significant and clinically relevant reduction of cervical dystonia-specific impairment, including severity, disability, and pain, and that it is well tolerated, when compared with placebo. There is also moderate certainty in the evidence that people treated with BtA are at an increased risk of developing adverse events, most notably dysphagia and diffuse weakness. There are no data from RCTs evaluating the effectiveness and safety of repeated BtA injection cycles. There is no evidence from RCTs to allow us to draw definitive conclusions on the optimal treatment intervals and doses, usefulness of guidance techniques for injection, the impact on quality of life, or the duration of treatment effect.

Botulinum toxin type A versus botulinum toxin type B for cervical dystonia.

BACKGROUND: This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2003. Cervical dystonia is the most common form of focal dystonia and is a disabling disorder characterised by painful involuntary head posturing. There are two available formulations of botulinum toxin, with botulinum toxin type A (BtA) usually considered the first line therapy for this condition. Botulinum toxin type B (BtB) is an alternative option, with no compelling theoretical reason why it might not be as- or even more effective - than BtA. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy, safety and tolerability of botulinum toxin type A (BtA) versus botulinum toxin type B (BtB) in people with cervical dystonia. SEARCH METHODS: To identify studies for this review we searched the Cochrane Movement Disorders Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, reference lists of articles and conference proceedings. All elements of the search, with no language restrictions, were last run in October 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: Double-blind, parallel, randomised, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) comparing BtA versus BtB in adults with cervical dystonia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent authors assessed records, selected included studies, extracted data using a paper pro forma, and evaluated the risk of bias. We resolved disagreements by consensus or by consulting a third author. We performed meta-analyses using the random-effects model, for the comparison BtA versus BtB to estimate pooled effects and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). No prespecified subgroup analyses were carried out. The primary efficacy outcome was improvement on any validated symptomatic rating scale, and the primary safety outcome was the proportion of participants with adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We included three RCTs, all new to this update, of very low to low methodological quality, with a total of 270 participants.Two studies exclusively enrolled participants with a known positive response to BtA treatment. This raises concerns of population enrichment, with a higher probability of benefit from BtA treatment. None of the trials were free of for-profit bias, nor did they provide information regarding registered study protocols. All trials evaluated the effect of a single Bt treatment session, and not repeated treatment sessions, using doses from 100 U to 250 U of BtA (all onabotulinumtoxinA, or Botox, formulations) and 5000 U to 10,000 U of BtB (rimabotulinumtoxinB, or Myobloc/Neurobloc).We found no difference between the two types of botulinum toxin in terms of overall efficacy, with a mean difference of -1.44 (95% CI -3.58 to 0.70) points lower on the Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (TWSTRS) for BtB-treated participants, measured at two to four weeks after injection. The proportion of participants with adverse events was also not different between BtA and BtB (BtB versus BtA risk ratio (RR) 1.40; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.96). However, when compared to BtA, treatment with BtB was associated with an increased risk of one adverse events of special interest, namely treatment-related sore throat/dry mouth (BtB versus BtA RR of 4.39; 95% CI 2.43 to 7.91). Treatment-related dysphagia (swallowing difficulties) was not different between BtA and BtB (RR 2.89; 95% CI 0.80 to 10.41). The two types of botulinum toxin were otherwise clinically non-distinguishable in all the remaining outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The previous version of this review did not include any trials, since these were still ongoing at the time. Therefore, with this update we are able to change the conclusions of this review. There is low quality evidence that a single treatment session of BtA (specifically onabotulinumtoxinA) and a single treatment session of BtB (rimabotulinumtoxinB) are equally effective and safe in the treatment of adults with certain types of cervical dystonia. Treatment with BtB appears to present an increased risk of sore throat/dry mouth, compared to BtA. Overall, there is no clinical evidence from these single-treatment trials to support or contest the preferential use of one form of botulinum toxin over the other.

Botulinum toxin type B for cervical dystonia.

BACKGROUND: This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004, and previously updated in 2009 (no change in conclusions). Cervical dystonia is a frequent and disabling disorder characterised by painful involuntary head posturing. Botulinum toxin type A (BtA) is usually considered the first line therapy for this condition, although botulinum toxin type B (BtB) is an alternative option. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy, safety and tolerability of botulinum toxin type B (BtB) versus placebo in people with cervical dystonia. SEARCH METHODS: We identified studies for inclusion in the review using the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, reference lists of articles and conference proceedings, last run in October 2015. We ran the search from 1977 to 2015. The search was unrestricted by language. SELECTION CRITERIA: Double-blind, parallel, randomised, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) of BtB versus placebo in adults with cervical dystonia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent authors assessed records, selected included studies, extracted data using a paper pro forma and evaluated the risk of bias. We resolved disagreements by consensus or by consulting a third author. We performed one meta-analysis for the comparison BtB versus placebo. We used random-effects models when there was heterogeneity and fixed-effect models when there was no heterogeneity. In addition, we performed pre-specified subgroup analyses according to BtB doses and BtA previous clinical responsiveness. The primary efficacy outcome was overall improvement on any validated symptomatic rating scale. The primary safety outcome was the number of participants with any adverse event. MAIN RESULTS: We included four RCTs of moderate overall methodological quality, including 441 participants with cervical dystonia. Three studies excluded participants known to have poorer response to Bt treatment, therefore including an enriched population with a higher probability of benefiting from Bt treatment. None of the trials were independently funded. All RCTs evaluated the effect of a single Bt treatment session using doses between 2500 U and 10,000 U. BtB was associated with an improvement of 14.7% (95% CI 9.8% to 19.5) in the patients' baseline clinical status as assessed by investigators, with reduction of 6.8 points in the Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (TWSTRS-total score) at week 4 after injection (95% CI 4.54 to 9.01). Mean difference (MD) in TWSTRS-pain score at week 4 was 2.20 (95% CI 1.25 to 3.15). Overall, both participants and clinicians reported an improvement of subjective clinical status. There were no differences between groups in the withdrawals rate due to adverse events or in the proportion of participants with adverse events. However, BtB-treated patients had a 7.65 (95% CI 2.75 to 21.32) and a 6.78 (95% CI 2.42 to 19.05) increased risk of treatment-related dry mouth and dysphagia, respectively. Statistical heterogeneity between studies was low to moderate for most outcomes. All tested dosages were efficacious against placebo without clear-cut evidence of a dose-response gradient. However, duration of effect (time until return to baseline TWSTRS-total score) and risk of dry mouth and dysphagia were greater in the subgroup of participants treated with higher BtB doses. Subgroup analysis showed a higher improvement with BtB among BtA-non-responsive participants, although there were no differences in the effect size between the BtA-responsive and non-responsive subgroups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: A single BtB-treatment session is associated with a significant and clinically relevant reduction of cervical dystonia impairment including severity, disability and pain, and is well tolerated, when compared with placebo. However, BtB-treated patients are at an increased risk of dry mouth and dysphagia. There are no data from RCTs evaluating the effectiveness and safety of repeated BtB injection cycles. There are no RCT data to allow us to draw definitive conclusions on the optimal treatment intervals and doses, usefulness of guidance techniques for injection, and impact on quality of life.