MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161094943 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006966

Effects of electroconvulsive therapy on cognitive functioning in patients with depression: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

2015· review· en· W2161094943 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Carolina Oremus, Mark Oremus, Heather E. McNeely, Bruno J. Losier, Melissa Parlar, Matthew King, Gary Hasey, Gagan Fervaha, Allyson C Graham, Caitlin Gregory, Lindsay C. Hanford, Anthony Nazarov, María Teresa Restivo, Erica L. Tatham, Wanda Truong, Geoffrey B. Hall, Ruth A. Lanius, Margaret C. McKinnon

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicElectroconvulsive Therapy Studies
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonWestern UniversityUniversity of CalgaryHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation HospitalHomewood Research InstituteToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of TorontoUniversity of WaterlooMcMaster University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineJadad scaleMeta-analysisSystematic reviewElectroconvulsive therapyRandomized controlled trialMEDLINEPsychiatryCINAHLPublication biasCognitionPsychological interventionInternal medicineCochrane Library

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Depression is the leading cause of disability worldwide, affecting approximately 350 million people. Evidence indicates that only 60-70% of persons with major depressive disorder who tolerate antidepressants respond to first-line drug treatment; the remainder become treatment resistant. Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is considered an effective therapy in persons with treatment-resistant depression. The use of ECT is controversial due to concerns about temporary cognitive impairment in the acute post-treatment period. We will conduct a meta-analysis to examine the effects of ECT on cognition in persons with depression. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis has been registered with PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42014009100). We developed our methods following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. We are searching MEDLINE, PsychINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane from the date of database inception to the end of October 2014. We are also searching the reference lists of published reviews and evidence reports for additional citations. Comparative studies (randomised controlled trials, cohort and case-control) published in English will be included in the meta-analysis. Three clinical neuropsychologists will group the cognitive tests in each included article into a set of mutually exclusive cognitive subdomains. The risk of bias of randomised controlled trials will be assessed using the Jadad scale. We will supplement the Jadad scale with additional questions based on the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The risk of bias of cohort and case-control studies will be assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We will employ the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the strength of evidence. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Separate meta-analyses will be conducted for each ECT treatment modality and cognitive subdomain using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis V.2.0.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.055
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.067
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.289

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0550.067
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0230.036
Bibliometrics0.0090.009
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0570.005

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 head0.158
GPT teacher head0.487
Teacher spread0.329 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations36
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicElectroconvulsive Therapy StudiesFrench-language works237,207