Cited by 4Botulinum Toxin and Related Neurological DisordersStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effect of Early Treatment of Spasticity After Stroke on Motor Recovery: Protocol for the Baclotox Multicenter, Double-Blind, Double-Dummy Randomized Controlled Trial

Open access
Montane, Emmeline, Brihmat, Nabila, Cormier, Camille, Thalamas, Claire, Rousseau, Vanessa, Tap, Gerard, De Boissezon, Xavier, Castel-Lacanal, Evelyne, Baclotox Group, Marque, Philippe·2025·JMIR Research Protocols

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: Individuals with poststroke hemiplegia often develop spasticity, which increases disability. Antispastic treatments such as baclofen and botulinum toxin are commonly prescribed in poststroke recovery. However, their impact on motor recovery, especially when administered within the first 2 months after stroke, remains unclear. Objective: This study aims to compare the motor recovery effects of botulinum toxin versus oral baclofen. The hypothesis is that botulinum toxin is more supportive of motor recovery than baclofen and enhances functional recovery. Methods: The study is a multicenter, controlled phase IV, comparative, prospective, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, superiority trial to compare the toxin and baclofen, and a noninferiority trial to compare the toxin and the placebo. It focuses on the time course of the Fugl-Meyer Motor Assessment (FMA) as the primary outcome. The main inclusion criterion is patients with a single stroke in the past 2 months. Treatment comprises 1 intramuscular injection at treatment initiation and oral tablets for 4 months. Randomized patients are allocated to 3 arms: botulinum toxin with placebo baclofen, baclofen with placebo botulinum toxin, and placebo baclofen with placebo botulinum toxin. FMA scores are assessed at pretreatment, 1 month, and 3 months later. Spasticity, functional abilities, activities of daily living, pain, and quality of life are also evaluated. Adverse effects are monitored. A positive difference of 13 points in the FMA time course between the botulinum toxin and baclofen groups is considered a relevant effect. The data analysis plan involves linear regression models to compare primary and secondary outcomes, with adjustments for covariates such as age, center, and associated treatments. Subgroup analyses will examine proportional recovery profiles, and missing data in Fugl-Meyer scores will be addressed using imputation methods. Results: A total of 179 participants were randomized across 18 centers, with inclusions delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. As of December 2024, the data manager currently has all the data, and a review of data quality is in progress. No statistical analysis has been conducted so far, and the blind will be lifted after the analysis. Conclusions: This study identifies the most suitable spasticity treatment, considering the specificities of the stroke and constraints during the recovery phase. It will provide recommendations for the primary treatment of early spasticity post stroke. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02462317; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02462317; European clinical trials (EudraCT) 2010-022881-28; https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2010-022881-28/FR International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/62951

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2196/62951

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 45

  1. 10.4414/bms.2000.07606 · DOI
  2. 10.1161/01.str.20.10.1407 · DOI
  3. 10.1177/1747493017711816 · DOI
  4. 10.1016/j.cub.2011.01.069 · DOI
  5. 10.1002/mus.20285 · DOI
  6. 10.1111/j.1468-1331.2011.03448.x · DOI
  7. 10.1111/ene.12381 · DOI
  8. 10.1016/j.rehab.2009.09.005 · DOI
  9. 10.1016/j.nurx.2006.07.010 · DOI
  10. 10.1113/JP280378 · DOI
  11. 10.1136/jnnp.2008.159657 · DOI
  12. 10.1016/s0168-6054(07)80002-x · DOI
  13. 10.1136/jnnp.2003.025551 · DOI
  14. 10.1016/j.apmr.2019.01.016 · DOI
  15. 10.1111/j.1468-1331.2008.02194.x · DOI
  16. 10.1016/j.jns.2015.12.049 · DOI
  17. 10.1002/phy2.173 · DOI
  18. 10.1016/j.mri.2009.12.023 · DOI
  19. 10.3390/toxins13020155 · DOI
  20. 10.1016/j.rehab.2019.06.003 · DOI
  21. 10.1016/S1474-4422(10)70314-8 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Fugl-Meyer, AR, 1975, Scand J Rehabil Med, 7, 13, 10.2340/1650197771331 · DOI · Paper page
  23. 10.1177/23969873231191304 · DOI
  24. 10.1191/0269215504cr737oa · DOI
  25. 10.1177/1545968308315999 · DOI
  26. Tardieu, G, 1954, Rev Neurol, 91, 143
  27. 10.1080/09638280500404305 · DOI
  28. 10.1093/ptj/67.2.206 · DOI
  29. 10.2340/16501977-0463 · DOI
  30. 10.1161/01.str.19.5.604 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Granger, CV, 1989, Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 70, 100
  32. Wood-Dauphinee, SL, 1988, Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 69, 583
  33. 10.1161/01.STR.0000238594.91938.1e · DOI · Paper page
  34. 10.2522/ptj.20110009 · DOI
  35. 10.1179/1945511915Y.0000000003 · DOI
  36. 10.1177/1545968307305302 · DOI
  37. 10.1177/1545968314562115 · DOI
  38. 10.1002/ana.24472 · DOI
  39. 10.1002/ana.24510 · DOI
  40. 10.1002/ana.24537 · DOI
  41. 10.1016/0006-8993(86)90261-1 · DOI
  42. 10.1177/1545968314543652 · DOI
  43. 10.1093/ageing/afj084 · DOI
  44. 10.1111/j.1468-1331.2008.02114.x · DOI
  45. 10.1016/j.jns.2016.10.005 · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Montane, E., Brihmat, N., Cormier, C., Thalamas, C., Rousseau, V., Tap, G., De Boissezon, X., Castel-Lacanal, E., Baclotox Group, & Marque, P.
Affiliations
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
  • Inserm (FR)
  • Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Toulouse (FR)
Venue
JMIR Research Protocols
Published
2025-05-09
Volume
14
Pages
e62951
ISSN
1929-0748 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4410223395
Cited by
4
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2
FWCI
2.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR Research Protocols (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Merz Pharmaceuticals
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Clinical Neurology › Botulinum Toxin and Related Neurological Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Cerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Keywords
stroke, botulinum toxin, baclofen, motor recovery, post-stroke hemiplegia, Fugl-Meyer Assessment, early treatment, functional recovery, activities of daily living, quality of life, pain, non-inferiority, double-dummy design, subgroup analysis, missing data imputation, COVID-19 pandemic
MeSH terms
Stroke Rehabilitation, Equivalence Trials as Topic, Adult, Baclofen, Botulinum Toxins, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Muscle Spasticity, Prospective Studies, Multicenter Studies as Topic, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Recovery of Function, Stroke

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review