ArticleJournal of psychiatric research2022
Distinct predictors of short- versus long-term depression outcomes following electroconvulsive therapy.
Article in Journal of psychiatric research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ultrabrief pulse electroconvulsive therapy for depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Molecular psychiatry · 2026Pooled it
- Outcomes of patients receiving interventional psychiatric procedures in a large integrated healthcare system.Psychiatry research · 2025Article
- Variables associated with clinical outcomes and switching from unilateral to bitemporal electroconvulsive therapy: a retrospective study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
- Unmasking patient diversity: Exploring cognitive and antidepressive effects of electroconvulsive therapy.European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists · 2024Article
- Exome-wide association study of treatment-resistant depression suggests novel treatment targets.Scientific reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Patients and clinicians considering electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) for treatment-resistant depression are faced with limited information about the likely long-term outcomes, and the individual characteristics that predict those outcomes. We aimed to identify sociodemographic and clinical predictors of acute ECT response and subsequent long-term depression severity. This prospective longitudinal study followed adult patients at a single academic ECT center. Among 114 participants, 105 completed an index ECT series and 70 were classified as acute ECT responders. Over a 2-year follow-up period, 82 subjects provided data on depression severity (Patient Health Questionnaire; PHQ-9). Better acute ECT response was predicted by less medication resistance, shorter index episode, and psychotic features (p < 0.05). PHQ-9 scores during the two-year follow-up period improved from baseline at all time points (p < 0.000001) but individual scores varied widely. Lower long-term PHQ-9 scores were predicted by better acute therapeutic response to ECT (p = 0.004) but not by ECT adverse effects (p > 0.05). Married status and greater baseline clinician-rated severity were not associated with acute ECT response but those variables did predict lower PHQ-9 scores longitudinally (p < 0.001), independent of other baseline features, initial ECT response, or intensity of ongoing treatment. These findings confirm previously identified predictors of short-term ECT response and demonstrate that distinct individual characteristics predict long-term depression outcomes. An individual's social context appears to strongly influence long-term but not short-term outcomes, suggesting a potential target for post-ECT therapeutic interventions.
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.