ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2025
Efficacy and influencing factors of modified electroconvulsive therapy for schizophrenia: a real-world retrospective observational study.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: Schizophrenia (SCZ) is a chronic and disabling psychiatric disorder. Modified Electroconvulsive Therapy (MECT), which involves electrical stimulation under general anaesthesia and muscle relaxation, is widely used to treat SCZ. Despite its rapid onset and robust therapeutic effect, the efficacy of MECT varies significantly between individuals. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of MECT in patients with SCZ and identify its influencing factors, with the goal of informing personalised treatment strategies. Methods: This retrospective observational study included 237 inpatients with SCZ who received a full course of MECT at the Fourth People's Hospital of Nantong between January 2023 and December 2024. Treatment response was evaluated using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) reduction rate. Patients were classified into effective (≥50% reduction) and ineffective (<50% reduction) groups. Demographic, clinical, and treatment-related variables were compared between groups, and multivariate logistic regression was used to identify predictors of treatment response. Results: The overall effectiveness rate of MECT was 70.46%. Multivariate analysis identified age ≥50 years (OR = 0.111-0.078, P = 0.010-0.002) and illness duration ≥10 years (OR = 0.028-0.003, P < 0.05) as negative predictors of response. In contrast, first-episode SCZ (OR=6.537, P = 0.003), higher baseline positive symptom scores (OR = 1.325, P<0.001), and longer EEG seizure duration (OR = 1.183, P<0.001) were positive predictors. No significant associations were found for sex, education level, or stimulus parameters such as current or frequency. Conclusion: MECT remains a clinically valuable intervention for SCZ, particularly in younger, first-episode patients with prominent positive symptoms. Treatment efficacy is influenced by age, illness duration, baseline symptom severity, and seizure quality. These findings support the need for personalised MECT protocols guided by clinical and electrophysiological characteristics.
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.