Electroconvulsive therapy in children and adolescents: results from a population‑based study utilising the Swedish National Quality Register
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is effective and safe for adults with severe depression, but less studied in adolescents. Here, we examined the indications, prevalence, practice, response and remission rates, and side effects in young people treated with ECT in Sweden. We also examined the usage of ECT in the transition to adult psychiatry. Using data from national patient registers and the Swedish National Quality Register for ECT (Q-ECT), we identified patients aged up to 19 years treated with ECT over a 5-year study period. Response and remission rates were analysed using the Clinical Global Impression (7-point scale)-Improvement (CGI-I) and Severity (CGI-S). A total of 118 individuals were identified, of which 105 were also enrolled in the Q-ECT. The most common indication for ECT was depression (68%; n = 80). Adolescents aged < 18 years were more severely ill before treatment than those aged 18 years (P < 0.01). Three of the hospitals in Sweden treated the majority of adolescents < 18 years old. The median number of sessions in each ECT series was seven. Unilateral placement of the electrodes was the most common (88%; n = 99). Fifty-seven percent (n = 54) of the patients responded (CGI-I, 1-2) to the treatment; remission (CGI-S, 1-2) was achieved by 32% (n = 30). Psychotic symptoms were associated with a higher response rate in patients with depression (P = 0.038). A deterioration of memory compared to pre-treatment was reported in six patients. ECT was associated with high response and remission rates in adolescents with severe psychiatric disorders after non-response to medication.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".