ReviewDer Nervenarzt2018
[Rationality and freedom in medicine: the case of electroconvulsive therapy].
Review in Der Nervenarzt, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effectiveness of, access to and need for electroconvulsive therapy in forensic psychiatric hospitals: a survey in Germany and Switzerland.European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2026Article
- [Electroconvulsive therapy: what should be done when the needs exceed the treatment capacities?-A medical ethics guidance].Der Nervenarzt · 2024Article
- [Benefits and risks of psychiatric actions and the patient's right of self-determination].Der Nervenarzt · 2021Article
- Willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life year for depressive disorders compared to heart disease based on population preferences.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There are no rational reasons why electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) should not be subject to the same criteria in its clinical application as any other treatment in medicine. Associations referring to historical events and their presentation in the media do not provide convincing arguments against the clinical use of ECT. In order to offer ECT to patients, scientifically solid evidence with respect to its clinical results must be available. As this scientific evidence is clearly given, ECT must be offered to the patients. A well-informed, reflected medicine must not withhold an effective treatment like ECT from the patients and medicine should not be influenced by associations but only by scientific evidence, even though the exact mechanisms of action of ECT are not known in detail. The image of ECT has clearly improved during the last decades thereby increasing the hope that unjustified arguments against ECT will lose their impact.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29971490What 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.