Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40042615›Full record

ReviewDer Nervenarzt2025

[Access to electroconvulsive therapy for people lacking decision making capacity and as nonvoluntary treatment : Expert consensus and statement of the German Association for Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics (DGPPN)].

David Zilles-Wegner, Jakov Gather, Alkomiet Hasan, Jürgen L Müller, Thomas Pollmächer, Alfred Simon, Tilman Steinert, Alexander Sartorius

Abstract readConsensus StatementEnglish AbstractReview
In one paragraph

Review in Der Nervenarzt, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

David Zilles-WegnerKlinik für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, Universitätsmedizin Göttingen, Von-Siebold-Str. 5, 37075, Göttingen, Deutschland. david.zilles@med.uni-goettingen.de.
Jakov GatherKlinik für Psychiatrie, Psychotherapie und Präventivmedizin, LWL-Universitätsklinikum, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Bochum, Deutschland.
Alkomiet HasanKlinik für Psychiatrie, Psychotherapie und Psychosomatik, Medizinische Fakultät, Universität Augsburg, Augsburg, Deutschland.
Jürgen L MüllerSchwerpunktprofessur für Forensische Psychiatrie, Universitätsmedizin Göttingen, Göttingen, Deutschland.
Thomas PollmächerKlinikum Ingolstadt, Zentrum für psychische Gesundheit, Ingolstadt, Deutschland.
Alfred SimonAkademie für Ethik in der Medizin, Universitätsmedizin Göttingen, Göttingen, Deutschland.
Tilman SteinertKlinik für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, ZfP Südwürttemberg, Universität Ulm (Weissenau), Ulm (Weissenau), Deutschland.
Alexander SartoriusKlinik für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, Zentralinstitut für Seelische Gesundheit, Mannheim, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is a clinically well-established, evidence-based procedure for the treatment of particularly severe or treatment-resistant psychiatric and neuropsychiatric disorders. A considerable number of patients who require ECT are unable to provide informed consent due to their medical condition. Both international and national studies show that restrictive laws and legal rulings can hinder or even prevent the use of ECT in patients lacking the capacity to provide informed consent or in cases of nonvoluntary treatment (coercive treatment). Patients with indications for ECT who lack the capacity to consent constitute a vulnerable group, often with no viable alternative therapy available. The decision to administer ECT to individuals lacking the capacity to consent, particularly as a nonvoluntary treatment, is highly complex in terms of legal and medical ethics aspects because depending on the circumstances, both administering and withholding ECT can profoundly impact the patient's fundamental rights. The available evidence shows that patients initially treated against their will exhibit good overall response rates, with equally high retrospective and prospective approval for therapy compared to patients who initially consented to treatment.Together with the medical ethics considerations the authors conclude that the use of ECT should adhere to the same ethical and normative standards as all other medical interventions. This also applies to cases involving involuntary treatment. Adopting a more restrictive approach to ECT compared to other medical measures is neither medically nor ethically justified. Structural and legal barriers restricting access to necessary treatment for patients with severe and potentially life-threatening conditions should be critically reviewed and, when possible and necessary, removed.

Indexed as

Electroconvulsive TherapyHealth Services AccessibilityInformed ConsentMental CompetencyMental DisordersPsychiatryPsychosomatic MedicineGermanyHumansDecision-making capacityForensic psychiatryInvoluntary treatmentMedical ethicsNonvoluntary treatment

Identifiers

PMID40042615
PMCPMC12662870

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.