MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W839462750 · doi:10.1177/070674371405900312

Book Review: Electroconvulsive Therapy: The ECT Handbook. Third Edition

2014· article· en· W839462750 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Peter Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicElectroconvulsive Therapy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectroconvulsive therapyExcellenceNiceAccreditationClinical PracticePsychiatryBest practicePsychologyMedicineFamily medicineMedical educationPolitical scienceLawSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electroconvulsive Therapy The ECT Handbook. Third Edition. Jonathan Waite, Andrew Easton, editors. London (GB): RCPsych Publications; 2013. 288 p. £45.00Reviewer rating: GoodSince the seminal editorial in the Lancet by Dr Chris Freeman, who admonished his colleagues by stating if ECT is ever legislated against or falls into disuse it will not be because it is an ineffective or dangerous treatment, it will be because psychiatrists have failed to supervise and monitor its use adequately,1, p 1208 leading electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) practitioners in the United Kingdom have paved the way in conducting systematic surveys of practice, developing clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), and creating ECT interdisciplinary accreditation services to monitor ECT clinics. The latest iteration of the Royal College of Psychiatrists' The ECT Handbook, which updates the previous edition published in 2005, reflects guidance and recommendations encompassing the scope of ECT practice in 23 user-friendly chapters. The ECT Handbook discusses the decade-old controversy surrounding some of the Royal College Special Committee on ECT's recommendations as being divergent to those of the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE), with some reconciliation in 2009 after revised NICE guidelines,2 which illustrates the tension that can occur when governmental agencies attempt to impose restrictions on clinical practice without sufficient input from treatment providers. This tension has also been manifest in the United States in the ongoing review by the Food and Drug Administration Advisory Panel on the safety of ECT devices.3The ECT Handbook covers areas of practice not contained in previous British or American ECT CPGs, including ultrabrief pulse width and bifrontal ECT, biological mechanisms, comparison with other neurostimulation therapies, and a very helpful section on dental assessment and management. The chapters on the risks of cognitive impairment and training or competency to administer ECT are particularly illuminating, respectively reflecting contemporary reviews and UK residency training standards. Recommendations are clearly laid out at the end of most chapters, though the reader will sometimes need to refer to the text to gather other recommendations.More tables would have highlighted certain points more succinctly. There are appendices that provide sample ECT information for patients and families, and a sample consent form. These pieces of information can help educate and supplement the Canadian video information that is now widely available.4For Canadian practitioners, many recommendations are pertinent, although there are some distinct differences that may render certain ones not as applicable to practice here. UK ECT devices can deliver almost double the maximum stimulus energy (1000 mC), compared with those in North America. North American practice tends toward ECT 3 times weekly and 2 times above seizure threshold bilateral ECT, as opposed to the twice weekly ECT and 1.5 times above seizure threshold bilateral ECT, as more conservatively recommended by The ECT Handbook. There was some discrepancy on the definition of prolonged ECT-elicited seizure in The ECT Handbook, as one chapter stated 90 seconds while another indicated 120 seconds, but they are still less than the 180 seconds, as defined in the American Psychiatric Association (APA)5 and British Columbia ECT guidelines.6 As well, The ECT Handbook's concept of an escort nurse, who knows the patient, knows the ECT process, and must accompany him or her to and from the session, may be ideal, yet can be practically difficult owing to limited nursing availability in some places. …

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.376

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1120.101

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of PsychiatrySame topicElectroconvulsive Therapy StudiesFrench-language works237,207