Book Review: Electroconvulsive Therapy: The ECT Handbook. Third Edition
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Electroconvulsive Therapy The ECT Handbook. Third Edition. Jonathan Waite, Andrew Easton, editors. London (GB): RCPsych Publications; 2013. 288 p. £45.00Reviewer rating: GoodSince the seminal editorial in the Lancet by Dr Chris Freeman, who admonished his colleagues by stating if ECT is ever legislated against or falls into disuse it will not be because it is an ineffective or dangerous treatment, it will be because psychiatrists have failed to supervise and monitor its use adequately,1, p 1208 leading electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) practitioners in the United Kingdom have paved the way in conducting systematic surveys of practice, developing clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), and creating ECT interdisciplinary accreditation services to monitor ECT clinics. The latest iteration of the Royal College of Psychiatrists' The ECT Handbook, which updates the previous edition published in 2005, reflects guidance and recommendations encompassing the scope of ECT practice in 23 user-friendly chapters. The ECT Handbook discusses the decade-old controversy surrounding some of the Royal College Special Committee on ECT's recommendations as being divergent to those of the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE), with some reconciliation in 2009 after revised NICE guidelines,2 which illustrates the tension that can occur when governmental agencies attempt to impose restrictions on clinical practice without sufficient input from treatment providers. This tension has also been manifest in the United States in the ongoing review by the Food and Drug Administration Advisory Panel on the safety of ECT devices.3The ECT Handbook covers areas of practice not contained in previous British or American ECT CPGs, including ultrabrief pulse width and bifrontal ECT, biological mechanisms, comparison with other neurostimulation therapies, and a very helpful section on dental assessment and management. The chapters on the risks of cognitive impairment and training or competency to administer ECT are particularly illuminating, respectively reflecting contemporary reviews and UK residency training standards. Recommendations are clearly laid out at the end of most chapters, though the reader will sometimes need to refer to the text to gather other recommendations.More tables would have highlighted certain points more succinctly. There are appendices that provide sample ECT information for patients and families, and a sample consent form. These pieces of information can help educate and supplement the Canadian video information that is now widely available.4For Canadian practitioners, many recommendations are pertinent, although there are some distinct differences that may render certain ones not as applicable to practice here. UK ECT devices can deliver almost double the maximum stimulus energy (1000 mC), compared with those in North America. North American practice tends toward ECT 3 times weekly and 2 times above seizure threshold bilateral ECT, as opposed to the twice weekly ECT and 1.5 times above seizure threshold bilateral ECT, as more conservatively recommended by The ECT Handbook. There was some discrepancy on the definition of prolonged ECT-elicited seizure in The ECT Handbook, as one chapter stated 90 seconds while another indicated 120 seconds, but they are still less than the 180 seconds, as defined in the American Psychiatric Association (APA)5 and British Columbia ECT guidelines.6 As well, The ECT Handbook's concept of an escort nurse, who knows the patient, knows the ECT process, and must accompany him or her to and from the session, may be ideal, yet can be practically difficult owing to limited nursing availability in some places. …
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».