ReviewWiener klinische Wochenschrift2015
On the significance of electroconvulsive therapy in the treatment of severe mental diseases.
Review in Wiener klinische Wochenschrift, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Outcomes and Treatment Characteristics of Seizure Threshold-Titrated Electroconvulsive Therapy in Depressive Disorder: A 3.5-Year Retrospective Naturalistic Course-Level Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- A Systematic Review of Knowledge, Attitude, and Perception Towards Electroconvulsive Therapy (ECT) in Africa.Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment · 2025Review
- Understanding the Patient Landscape: A Ten-Year Retrospective Examination of Electroconvulsive Therapy in Romania's Largest Psychiatric Hospital.Biomedicines · 2024Article
- Effects of electroconvulsive therapy on cerebral AFrontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
- Traumatic shock and electroshock: the difficult relationship between anatomic pathology and psychiatry in the early 20Pathologica · 2019Review
- Electroconvulsive Therapy in Women: A Retrospective Study from a Mental Health Hospital in Turkey.The Psychiatric quarterly · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundQuite a few patients with severe mental diseases do not respond sufficiently to psychopharmacology and psychotherapy. For some of these, electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) offers a promising alternative. Erroneously, the method is being perceived as old fashioned by the lay public, but also by many doctors. Therefore, this overview aims at all colleagues who in their role as multipliers, referring physicians or ECT specialists can reduce the likelihood of mental disease to become chronic.
methodsDuring the last decades, numerous international medical societies including the Austrian and the German Association for Psychiatry (ÖGPP and DGPPN) have pointed to the importance of ECT as a modern medical intervention. Our overview is based on these guidelines and statements. Additionally selective literature searches have been conducted concerning some key aspects.
resultsDue to its excellent efficacy, ECT is an important option in the treatment of severe mental disease. Technological innovations and continued development in the psychiatric environment determined the evolution from the electroshock of the 1930s to the ECT of today. This process led to reduced side effects and a stronger patient-oriented praxis.
conclusionsECT is a modern, highly effective and safe treatment of severe mental diseases with comparatively few side effects. The method should not be used as a last resort but in an evidence-based way. Patients should be informed timely and adequately about the therapeutic option.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.