Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Errors in “Methods” Section. In the article by Nettar et al titled “An Internally Controlled, Double-blind Comparison of the Efficacy of OnabotulinumtoxinA and AbobotulinumtoxinA,” published in the November/December issue of the journal (2011;13:380-386), there were errors in the “Methods” section in the description of the product preparation and injection points. The fourth paragraph should have read:
“Treatment sides of the face were randomized with computer-aided software. Preparation of product was performed by an unblind registered nurse who was responsible for maintaining the blind. A 100-U vial of onabotulinumtoxinA was reconstituted with 2.0 mL of preservative-free, physiologic 0.9% saline. A 300-U vial of abobotulinumtoxinA was also reconstituted with 2.0 mL of preservative-free, physiologic 0.9% saline. Identical volumes (0.2 mL) of each were drawn into tuberculin syringes to ensure the blindedness of the injector. A dose of 0.05 mL of onabotulinumtoxinA or abobotulinumtoxinA was injected into the orbicularis oculi in the lateral orbital area in 4 separate injection points in aliquots of 0.05 mL (Figure 2) by the senior author and principal investigator (C.S.M.).”
Errors in “Methods” Section in: An Internally Controlled, Double-blind Comparison of the Efficacy of OnabotulinumtoxinA and AbobotulinumtoxinA. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2012;14(2):140. doi:10.1001/archfacial.2012.1
Create a personal account or sign in to: