ArticleThe international journal of neuropsychopharmacology2024
Ketamine or ECT? What Have We Learned From the KetECT and ELEKT-D Trials?
Article in The international journal of neuropsychopharmacology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Time matters for metas: a systematic review and meta-analysis of ect vs ketamine for depression incorporating time.Translational psychiatry · 2026Pooled it
- History of episodic heavy alcohol use predicts antidepressant effectiveness of ketamine.Psychopharmacology · 2026Article
- Little information, great impact? A clinical tool for the prediction of electroconvulsive therapy effectiveness in depression.BJPsych open · 2026Article
- Clinical and biological markers of electroconvulsive therapy effectiveness: a narrative review.Translational psychiatry · 2026Review
- Outcomes of patients receiving interventional psychiatric procedures in a large integrated healthcare system.Psychiatry research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
1. Two recent clinical trials, KetECT and ELEKT-D, compared the effectiveness of ketamine and electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) for major depressive disorder. Notably, these trials reported marked differences in ECT's clinical outcomes of, with remission rates of 63% for KetECT and a strikingly lower rate of 22% for ELEKT-D, while the remission rates for ketamine were 46% and 38%, respectively. Considering that the primary objective of both trials was to compare the standard treatment (ECT) with an experimental intervention (ketamine), it is crucial to highlight the pronounced disparities in ECT's clinical outcomes. This article offers a comprehensive comparison of these trials while also exploring how patient characteristics, treatment protocols, and study designs may contribute to such pronounced outcome discrepancies. These differences highlight the heterogeneous nature of depression and underscore the need for personalized treatments. These studies also provide valuable insights into identifying the most suitable candidates for ketamine and ECT.
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.