Research Article

in

Electroconvulsive Therapy for Depression: A Review of the Quality of ECT versus Sham ECT Trials and Meta-Analyses

Have access already?

Get access to this article:

Or get access to the particular issue:

Or get access to the entire journal:

Advertisement

Abstract

Background

Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is still being administered to approximately a million people annually. There have been no ECT versus simulated ECT (SECT) studies since 1985. The five meta-analyses of ECT versus SECT studies all claim that ECT is more effective than SECT for its primary target, severe depression. This review assesses the quality of those meta-analyses and of the 11 studies on which they are based.

Methods

The meta-analyses were evaluated primarily in terms of whether they considered the quality of the studies they included, but also in terms of whether they addressed efficacy beyond end of treatment. The methodological rigor of the 11 studies included by one or more of the meta-analyses was assessed using a 24-point Quality scale developed for this review.

Results

The five meta-analyses include between 1 and 7 of the 11 studies. The meta-analyses pay little or no attention to the multiple limitations of the studies they include. The 11 studies have a mean Quality score of 12.3 out of 24. Eight scored 13 or less. Only four studies describe their processes of randomization and testing the blinding. None convincingly demonstrate that they are double-blind. Five selectively report their findings. Only four report any ratings by patients. None assess Quality of Life. The studies are small, involving an average of 37 people. Four of the 11 found ECT significantly superior to SECT at the end of treatment, five found no significant difference and two found mixed results (including one where the psychiatrists reported a difference but patients did not). Only two higher Quality studies report follow-up data, one produced a near-zero effect size (.065) in the direction of ECT, and the other a small effect size (.299) in favor of SECT.

Conclusions

The quality of most SECT–ECT studies is so poor that the meta-analyses were wrong to conclude anything about efficacy, either during or beyond the treatment period. There is no evidence that ECT is effective for its target demographic—older women, or its target diagnostic group—severely depressed people, or for suicidal people, people who have unsuccessfully tried other treatments first, involuntary patients, or children and adolescents. Given the high risk of permanent memory loss and the small mortality risk, this longstanding failure to determine whether or not ECT works means that its use should be immediately suspended until a series of well designed, randomized, placebo-controlled studies have investigated whether there really are any significant benefits against which the proven significant risks can be weighed.

Article usage
Article Usage
Period Abstract Full PDF Total
Apr 2024 291 1 1 293
Mar 2024 277 0 0 277
Feb 2024 234 0 0 234
Jan 2024 388 0 0 388
Dec 2023 293 0 0 293
Nov 2023 323 0 0 323
Oct 2023 237 0 0 237
Sep 2023 220 0 0 220
Aug 2023 149 0 0 149
Jul 2023 194 0 0 194
Jun 2023 229 0 0 229
May 2023 262 0 0 262
Apr 2023 354 0 0 354
Mar 2023 506 0 1 507
Feb 2023 299 0 0 299
Jan 2023 816 0 0 816
Dec 2022 337 2 1 340
Nov 2022 230 0 0 230
Oct 2022 158 0 1 159
Sep 2022 260 0 0 260
Aug 2022 259 0 0 259
Jul 2022 287 0 0 287
Jun 2022 380 0 0 380
May 2022 218 0 0 218
Apr 2022 304 0 0 304
Mar 2022 496 0 0 496
Feb 2022 634 1 1 636
Jan 2022 702 2 2 706
Dec 2021 366 1 2 369
Nov 2021 323 0 0 323
Oct 2021 478 1 2 481
Sep 2021 291 0 0 291
Aug 2021 284 0 0 284
Jul 2021 215 0 0 215
Jun 2021 274 0 0 274
May 2021 861 0 1 862
Apr 2021 672 67 10 749
Mar 2021 387 402 64 853
Feb 2021 371 323 54 748
Jan 2021 412 648 260 1320
Dec 2020 414 331 77 822
Nov 2020 335 428 61 824
Oct 2020 351 467 48 866
Sep 2020 529 653 90 1272
Aug 2020 1274 1129 149 2552
Jul 2020 1561 1787 252 3600
Jun 2020 2421 4401 667 7489
May 2020 123 0 0 123
Apr 2020 86 0 0 86