Adjunctive ketamine in electroconvulsive therapy: Updated systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Ketamine has emerged as a novel therapeutic agent for major depressive episodes, spurring interest in its potential to augment electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). Aims We sought to update our preliminary systematic review and meta-analysis, focusing on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving an index course of ECT, and testing the hypothesis that lack of efficacy is due to barbiturate anaesthetic co-administration. Method We searched EMBASE, CENTRAL and Medline to identify RCTs examining the efficacy of ketamine during a course of ECT. Data were synthesised from ten trials (ketamine group n = 333, comparator group n = 269) using pooled random effects models. Results Electroconvulsive therapy with ketamine was not associated with greater improvements in depressive symptoms or higher rates of clinical response or remission, nor did it result in pro-cognitive effects. This held true when limiting analysis to trials without barbiturate anaesthetic co-administration. Increased rates of confusion were reported. Conclusions Overall, our analyses do not support using ketamine over other induction agents in ECT.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".