ArticleFocus (American Psychiatric Publishing)2025
Ketamine Versus Electroconvulsive Therapy for the Treatment of Depression: A Guide for Clinicians.
Article in Focus (American Psychiatric Publishing), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Impact of different anesthetic agents (propofol, etomidate, ketamine) on seizure duration and cognitive recovery in electroconvulsive therapy.World journal of methodology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The effective treatment of major depressive disorder remains one of the biggest public health challenges globally. For moderate to severe cases, pharmacotherapy often falls short, leading to treatment-resistant depression. Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) has generally been considered the gold standard for severe cases of treatment-resistant depression. However, emerging evidence suggests that ketamine may serve as a promising alternative. Two relatively large noninferiority trials and three meta-analyses support the efficacy of both treatments but report contradictory findings regarding superiority. The authors discuss possible reasons underlying these discrepant findings, including variations in patient selection criteria, study outcome measures, treatment delivery, and site experience. Additionally, the authors examine the unique risk and benefit profiles of each treatment, highlighting patient-specific considerations. By evaluating the most recent evidence for the efficacy of ketamine versus ECT alongside key patient-specific factors, the authors aimed to guide clinicians in recommending the optimal treatment choice for each patient.
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.