Reviews of botulinum toxin products in aesthetic use must be accurate, clear and avoid speculation
Andy Pickett1,2 1Toxin Science Limited, Wrexham, UK; 2Botulinum Research Center, University of Massachusetts (UMASS), North Dartmouth, MA, USAOne of the most surprising and, at the same time, most frustrating aspects of the continual rise in the use of botulinum toxin type A (BoNT-A), particularly i...
Guardado en:
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
Dove Medical Press
2013
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/6337067e9edf4219a8f4145bf4857428 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | Andy Pickett1,2 1Toxin Science Limited, Wrexham, UK; 2Botulinum Research Center, University of Massachusetts (UMASS), North Dartmouth, MA, USAOne of the most surprising and, at the same time, most frustrating aspects of the continual rise in the use of botulinum toxin type A (BoNT-A), particularly in aesthetic applications, is the sheer number of reviews currently being published. So far in 2013, there have been seven single or joint reviews of BoNT products focusing on facial aesthetics. The frustrating aspects of these reviews cover two areas: Firstly, they inevitably speculate about why there are "apparent differences" between the products. They attempt to use the science of BoNT-A to explain these differences. This speculation is both inappropriate and weak. In fact, the majority of differences between the products seen clinically are, by far, due to simple dose differences used in studies, especially when two or more products are being compared.View original paper by Prager. |
|---|