ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2022
Improved Safety of Hybrid Electroconvulsive Therapy Compared With Standard Electroconvulsive Therapy in Patients With Major Depressive Disorder: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Parallel-Group Pilot Trial.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Electroconvulsive therapy generates a postictal wave of spreading depolarization in mice and humans.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Rapid treatment center for depression in China: constructive reflections and transnational implications.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Review
- Hybrid electroconvulsive therapy in an adolescent with major depressive disorder: a case report.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2024Article
- Trajectories of Efficacy and Cognitive Function During Electroconvulsive Therapy Course in Young Adults with Treatment-Resistant Depression.Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment · 2023Article
- Assessment of memory deficits in psychiatric disorders: A systematic literature review.Journal of neurosciences in rural practiceReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: ECT is a rapid and effective treatment for depression. While efficacy is often remarkable over the initial 3-4 sessions, the efficacy of later sessions is less rapid, and the side-effects, especially cognitive impairment limit its use. To preliminarily compare the efficacy and acceptability of a novel hybrid-ECT (HECT) protocol for patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) with standard ECT, we conducted this pilot trial. Methods: Thirty patients were randomly assigned to ECT or HECT. Both arms received three ECT sessions (phase 1) but, in phase 2, the HECT arm received low-charge electrotherapy instead of ECT. The primary outcome was the change in 24-item Hamilton depression rating scale (HAMD-24) scores between baseline and the end of treatment. Cognitive function was assessed by repeatable battery for the assessment of neuropsychological status (RBANS), Stroop color word, and orientation recovery tests (ORT). Safety was measured by the drop-out rate and adverse events (AEs). Four visits were conducted at baseline, post-phase 1, post-phase 2, and at 1-month follow-up. Trial registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (http://www.chictr.org.cn/), identifier: ChiCTR1900027701. Results: Patients in both arms showed significant within-group improvements in HAMD-24, but the between-group differences were non-significant. Participants in the HECT arm outperformed ECT patients for most cognitive tests at the end of treatment or at follow-up. There was a significantly lower AE rate and shorter ORT in phase 2 of the HECT ar. Conclusion: In this pilot trial, HECT was associated with fewer AEs and better cognitive function including executive and memory function, but its possible similar antidepressive efficacy needs to be further investigated in future.
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.