MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010633807 · doi:10.1097/yct.0000000000000085

Efficacy of Continuation/Maintenance Electroconvulsive Therapy for the Prevention of Recurrence of a Major Depressive Episode in Adults With Unipolar Depression

2014· review· en· W2010633807 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Ect · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicElectroconvulsive Therapy Studies
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectroconvulsive therapyDepression (economics)Randomized controlled trialMedicinePsychological interventionAdverse effectPsychiatryInternal medicinePsychologySchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Divergent opinion surrounds the use of continuation/maintenance electroconvulsive therapy (c/mECT) as a recurrence prevention strategy in depression because of limited data on efficacy and adverse effects. In an effort to synthesize what is known about its efficacy, a systematic review of controlled studies reporting efficacy of c/mECT for the prevention of relapse or recurrence of a depressive episode in adults with unipolar major depression was conducted. METHODS: Eleven electronic databases were searched with a 3-stage screening process conducted by the author with an independent review. Quality assessments and data extractions were performed on selected studies using preselected tools. RESULTS: Six studies met the inclusion criteria; these are as follows: 3 randomized controlled trials, 1 small nonrandomized controlled trial, and 2 retrospective chart reviews. All participants had undergone an index course of electroconvulsive therapy with positive effects before receiving c/mECT or control/comparison interventions. One randomized controlled trial and retrospective chart review showed no significant difference between c/mECT and control/comparison interventions; the remaining 4 studies showed a significantly superior effect of c/mECT for the prevention of recurrence of depression. Monotherapy of c/mECT was less efficacious than c/mECT in combination with antidepressant medication, as was c/mECT delivered on a schedule, which was unresponsive to early signs of recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: This review suggests that c/mECT is efficacious for the prevention of relapse/recurrence of major depression and that efficacy is increased when c/mECT is provided in combination with antidepressant medication and at flexible treatment intervals, responsive to early signs of recurrence.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.961
Threshold uncertainty score0.742

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.323 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it