ArticleBJPsych open2025
Differences in electrode placements between consensual and nonconsensual electroconvulsive therapy: retrospective chart review study.
Article in BJPsych open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundElectroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is often used to treat severe mental disorders in individuals with impaired capacity to consent to the treatment. Little is known about how different types of electrode placement are used in consensual and nonconsensual ECT.
aimsTo investigate whether there was an association between ECT consent status and electrode placement, given that ECT electrode placement affects efficacy and cognitive outcomes.
methodUsing a statewide database across 3 years in Victoria, Australia, we performed chi-squared tests to determine whether consent status (consensual versus nonconsensual) was associated with particular electrode placements. A three-way log-linear analysis was then conducted to examine whether age, gender, level of education and psychiatric diagnosis influenced the relationship between consent status and electrode placement. Given the comparable cognitive outcomes of right unilateral and bifrontal ECT, these electrode placements were combined in the analysis.
resultsIn total, 3882 participants received ECT in the Victorian public health service during the study period. In the nonconsensual ECT group, 722 of 1576 individuals (45.81%) received bitemporal ECT, compared with 555 of 2306 (24.06%) in the consensual group (
conclusionSignificantly more participants in the nonconsensual ECT group received bitemporal ECT rather than right unilateral or bifrontal ECT compared with those in the consensual group. As bitemporal ECT is associated with more cognitive impairment, this choice of electrode placement in vulnerable patients who lack capacity to consent raises ethical considerations in the practice of 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.