ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2025
Variables associated with clinical outcomes and switching from unilateral to bitemporal electroconvulsive therapy: a retrospective study.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) remains the most effective treatment for many patients with severe and/or resistant psychiatric disorders. Right unilateral (RUL) ECT, particularly when administered with titration and ultrabrief pulses, provides cognitive advantages compared with bitemporal (BT) ECT without compromising efficacy. However, some patients fail to improve and require switching to BT ECT. The present study aims to evaluate variables associated with efficacy and tolerability during RUL ECT and, when needed, after switching to BT ECT, aiming to identify factors linked to better outcomes with each placement. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted on 58 adult inpatients treated with RUL ECT. Patients without improvement after 4-6 sessions could be switched to BT ECT. Demographic, clinical, pharmacological, and electric seizure-related data were collected. Treatment response was classified as total, partial, or none. Tolerability was assessed based on common side effects. Group comparisons were performed between RUL and BT ECT periods, and between unswitched and switched patients. Supplementary analysis was conducted to assess the relationship between efficacy/tolerability and the studied variables. Results: Of the patients who began with RUL ECT, 18 (31%) were switched to BT ECT. Remission occurred in 40% with RUL ECT and reached 55% cumulatively after BT ECT. Adverse effect rates were comparable between groups. Compared to patients who continued with the RUL ECT, those requiring switching had more prior manic episodes (p < 0.05), higher current antipsychotic use (p < 0.05), and a tendency for ECT to be indicated more often for severity than for treatment resistance (p < 0.10). Within the switched subgroup, clozapine use and ECT charge increased during BT sessions compared to the RUL course (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Initiating treatment with RUL ECT and transitioning to BT ECT when necessary offers a pragmatic balance between tolerability and efficacy. Certain clinical variables may guide clinicians in anticipating the need for switching from a RUL to a BT setup.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.