Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41206419›Full record

SynthesisMolecular psychiatry2026

Ultrabrief pulse electroconvulsive therapy for depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Ana Jelovac, Declan M McLoughlin

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Molecular psychiatry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

Ana JelovacDepartment of Psychiatry, Trinity College Dublin, St Patrick's University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0002-7653-8531
Declan M McLoughlinDepartment of Psychiatry, Trinity College Dublin, St Patrick's University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland. d.mcloughlin@tcd.ie.ORCID 0000-0003-4574-2799

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ultrabrief pulse (<0.5 millisecond pulse width) electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is regarded as a cognition-sparing form of ECT. Contrary to some early research, recent randomised trials have reported low remission rates with ultrabrief pulse high-dose right unilateral ECT. The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess acute and long-term outcomes following right unilateral and bilateral forms of ultrabrief pulse ECT in depression. We searched PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CENTRAL and ClinicalTrials.gov databases from 01 January 2007 to 17 September 2024 for randomised controlled trials and observational studies reporting on one or more relevant outcomes. Remission, response, relapse and switching rates to other forms of ECT were pooled using random effects models. 30 studies provided data on one or more outcomes. The pooled remission rate (k = 23, n = 1478) was 32.2% (95% CI 26.1%-39.0%) with ultrabrief pulse high-dose right unilateral ECT. Less than half of patients (45.3% [95% CI 39.0%-51.7%]) treated with this form of ECT achieved therapeutic response. Switching to brief-pulse ECT due to perceived inadequate response was common and occurred in 28.1% of patients (95% CI 20.6%-37.0%). Of remitters with ultrabrief pulse high-dose right unilateral ECT treated with continuation pharmacotherapy, 44.1% (95% CI 34.4%-54.3%) relapsed or withdrew within six months of completion of an acute course of ECT. The results of this meta-analysis indicate that acute outcomes following ultrabrief pulse ECT fall short of those expected with conventional brief-pulse ECT. As such, ultrabrief pulse ECT cannot be regarded as "state-of-the-art" ECT.

Indexed as

DepressionElectroconvulsive TherapyMajor Depressive DisorderHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRemission InductionTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID41206419
PMCPMC12815675

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.