Efficacy and Safety of Ketamine vs Electroconvulsive Therapy Among Patients With Major Depressive Episode
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Importance: Whether ketamine is as effective as electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) among patients with major depressive episode remains unknown. Objective: To systematically review and meta-analyze data about clinical efficacy and safety for ketamine and ECT in patients with major depressive episode. Data Sources: PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Embase were systematically searched using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and text keywords from database inception through April 19, 2022, with no language limits. Two authors also manually and independently searched all relevant studies in US and European clinical trial registries and Google Scholar. Study Selection: Included were studies that involved (1) a diagnosis of depression using standardized diagnostic criteria, (2) intervention/comparator groups consisting of ECT and ketamine, and (3) depressive symptoms as an efficacy outcome using standardized measures. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data extraction was completed independently by 2 extractors and cross-checked for errors. Hedges g standardized mean differences (SMDs) were used for improvement in depressive symptoms. SMDs with corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using fixed- or random-effects models. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline was followed. Main Outcomes and Measures: Efficacy outcomes included depression severity, cognition, and memory performance. Safety outcomes included serious adverse events (eg, suicide attempts and deaths) and other adverse events. Results: Six clinical trials comprising 340 patients (n = 162 for ECT and n = 178 for ketamine) were included in the review. Six of 6 studies enrolled patients who were eligible to receive ECT, 6 studies were conducted in inpatient settings, and 5 studies were randomized clinical trials. The overall pooled SMD for depression symptoms for ECT when compared with ketamine was -0.69 (95% CI, -0.89 to -0.48; Cochran Q, P = .15; I2 = 39%), suggesting an efficacy advantage for ECT compared with ketamine for depression severity. Significant differences were not observed between groups for studies that assessed cognition/memory or serious adverse events. Both ketamine and ECT had unique adverse effect profiles (ie, ketamine: lower risks for headache and muscle pain; ECT: lower risks for blurred vision, vertigo, diplopia/nystagmus, and transient dissociative/depersonalization symptoms). Limitations included low to moderate methodological quality and underpowered study designs. Conclusions and Relevance: Findings from this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that ECT may be superior to ketamine for improving depression severity in the acute phase, but treatment options should be individualized and patient-centered.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,017 | 0,049 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,009 | 0,015 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».