Efficacy and Safety of Ketamine vs Electroconvulsive Therapy Among Patients With Major Depressive Episode
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".