SynthesisActa anaesthesiologica Scandinavica2025
Propofol Versus Methohexital in Electroconvulsive Therapy: Impact on Treatment Efficacy and Adverse Effects. A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, 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.
- Propofol Versus Methohexital in Electroconvulsive Therapy: Impact on Treatment Efficacy and Adverse Effects. A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis.Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · 2025Pooled it
- Propofol for depression: mechanisms and therapeutic potential.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Review
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
Abstract
backgroundElectroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is a widely used treatment for depression, but the choice of the anesthetic that is used for induction may affect both clinical outcomes and the occurrence of adverse effects (AEs). Propofol and methohexital are frequently used in Finland, yet their relative impact on treatment efficacy and AEs remains uncertain.
methodsWe conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Electronic databases were searched up to January 21, 2025. Studies comparing propofol and methohexital in adult patients receiving ECT for depression and utilizing numeric scales for depression assessment were included. The primary outcome was the clinical treatment response, defined by the number of ECT sessions required to achieve remission. The secondary outcome was the variation of AEs associated with ECT between comparator groups. We included eight studies in the final analysis with 194 patients in the propofol group and 198 patients in the methohexital group. Five of the studies were randomized controlled trials and three were retrospective cohort studies. Three randomized controlled trials with 131 patients: 62 (47%) in propofol group and 69 (53%) in methohexital group were included in meta-analysis.
resultsThe number of ECT sessions required for recovery did not differ between groups. All studies demonstrated effective alleviation of depression through ECT, regardless of anesthetic choice. However, AEs were inconsistently reported, and a comprehensive overview of the topic was not possible.
conclusionsLow-quality evidence suggests equal efficacy of propofol compared to methohexital with regard to clinical remission of depression after ECT. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Trial Registration: PROSPERO; CRD42024520709. EDITORIAL COMMENT: This systematic review and meta-analysis presents the available but limited and low-quality evidence in this study area, and supports an interpretation that propofol and methohexital have similar efficacy when facilitating electroconfulsive therapy as treatment for depression, to relieve depression symptoms.
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.