ArticleThe journal of ECT2016
Expanded Safety and Efficacy Data for a New Method of Performing Electroconvulsive Therapy: Focal Electrically Administered Seizure Therapy.
Article in The journal of ECT, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 42 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- A Computational Modeling Study of Focal Electrically Administered Seizure Therapy and Frontoparietal Electroconvulsive Therapy.The journal of ECT · 2026Article
- Shaping plasticity with non-invasive brain stimulation in the treatment of psychiatric disorders: Present and future.Handbook of clinical neurology · 2022Review
- The Future of Training and Practice in Neuromodulation: An Interventional Psychiatry Perspective.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2021Article
- The Efficacy and Safety of Neuromodulation Treatments in Late-Life Depression.Current treatment options in psychiatry · 2020Article
- Therapeutic Uses of Seizures in Neuropsychiatry.Focus (American Psychiatric Publishing) · 2019Review
- Transcranial electrical stimulation nomenclature.Brain stimulationReview
- Electroconvulsive Therapy: Mechanisms of Action, Clinical Considerations, and Future Directions.Harvard review of psychiatryReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveElectroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is the most rapid and effective antidepressant treatment but with concerns about cognitive adverse effects. A new form of ECT, focal electrically administered seizure therapy (FEAST), was designed to increase the focality of stimulation and better match stimulus parameters with neurophysiology. We recently reported on the safety and feasibility of FEAST in a cohort (n = 17) of depressed patients. We now report on the safety, feasibility, preliminary efficacy, and cognitive effects of FEAST in a new cohort.
methodsOpen-label FEAST was administered to 20 depressed adults (6 men; 3 with bipolar disorder; age 49.1 ± 10.6 years). Clinical and cognitive assessments were obtained at baseline and end of course. Time to orientation recovery was assessed at each treatment. Nonresponders switched to conventional ECT.
resultsParticipants tolerated the treatment well with no dropouts. Five patients (25%) transitioned from FEAST to conventional ECT due to inadequate response. After FEAST (mean, 9.3 ± 3.5 sessions; range, 4-14), there was a 58.1% ± 36.0% improvement in Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression scores compared with that in the baseline (P < 0.0001); 13 (65%) of 20 patients met response criteria, and 11 (55%) of 20 met remission criteria. Patients achieved reorientation (4 of 5 items) in 4.4 ± 3.0 minutes (median, 4.5 minutes), timed from eyes opening. There was no deterioration in neuropsychological measures.
conclusionsThese findings provide further support for the safety and efficacy of FEAST. The remission and response rates were in the range found using conventional ECT, and the time to reorientation may be quicker. However, without a randomized comparison group, conclusions are tentative.
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.