Comparative Efficacy, Cognitive Effects and Acceptability of ECT for Depression: (Plans For a) Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

Out on PubMed, from a group of international investigators, is this paper:

Comparative efficacy, cognitive effects and acceptability of electroconvulsive therapies for the treatment of depression: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Nikolin S, Owens K, Francis-Taylor R, Chaimani A, Martin DM, Bull M, Sackeim HA, McLoughlin DM, Sienaert P, Kellner CH, Loo C.BMJ Open. 2022 Dec 22;12(12):e068313. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-068313.PMID: 36549738 
The abstract is copied below:

Introduction: There have been important advances in the use of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) to treat major depressive episodes. These include variations to the type of stimulus the brain regions stimulated, and the stimulus parameters (eg, stimulus duration/pulse width). Our aim is to investigate ECT types using a network meta-analysis (NMA) approach and report on comparative treatment efficacy, cognitive side effects and acceptability.

Method: We will conduct a systematic review to identify randomised controlled trials that compared two or more ECT protocols to treat depression. This will be done using the following databases: Embase, MEDLINE PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, PsycINFO, Cochrane CENTRAL and will be supplemented by personal contacts with researchers in the field. All authors will be contacted to provide missing information. Primary outcomes will be symptom severity on a validated continuous clinician-rated scale of depression, cognitive functioning measured using anterograde verbal recall, and acceptability calculated using all-cause drop-outs. Secondary outcomes will include response and remission rates, autobiographical memory following a course of ECT, and anterograde visuospatial recall.Bayesian random effects hierarchical models will compare ECT types. Additional meta-regressions may be conducted to determine the impact of effect modifiers and patient-specific prognostic factors if sufficient data are available.

Discussion: This NMA will facilitate clinician decision making and allow more sophisticated selection of ECT type according to the balance of efficacy, cognitive side effects and acceptability.

Ethics: This systematic review and NMA does not require research ethics approval as it will use published aggregate data and will not collect nor disclose individually identifiable participant data.

Prospero registration number: CRD42022357098.

Keywords: Adult psychiatry; Depression & mood disorders; MENTAL HEALTH.

The pdf is here.

And from the text:



This paper lays out the plans for a systematic review and network analysis of the efficacy, tolerability and acceptability of different forms of ECT. I am pleased that Steve Nikolin asked me to collaborate, along with other international colleagues. Hopefully, this approach to clarifying the extant literature will be helpful for clinicians to make better choices for their patients. 
The data are the data, but I hope that if some of the conclusions fly in the face of clinical experience and common sense, we will not blindly reify those conclusions. In other words, even sophisticated meta-analytic techniques cannot correct for low-quality, or incorrect, data that may be out there.
I look forward to working on, and seeing published, the results of this very interesting, and potentially elucidating, approach to the ECT literature. Kudos to Steve Nikolin and Colleen Loo and her group for spearheading this effort.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

ECT vs Ketamine: NEJM Article Sets Up False Equivalency

RUL ECT vs Low Amplitude Seizure Therapy (LAP-ST)

ECT For Children at a University Hospital: New Study in JECT