ReviewFrontiers in psychiatry2026
Comparative efficacy and cognitive function of magnetic seizure therapy and electroconvulsive therapy for major depressive disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Review in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Magnetic seizure therapy (MST), as a novel physical therapy technique, has demonstrated significant efficacy in the treatment of depression. Previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses have preliminarily confirmed its clinical value. This study conducts a meta-analysis based on updated randomized controlled trials to evaluate the differences in efficacy between MST and electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD), as well as their effects on cognitive function. Methods: We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Ovid, ProQuest, and CNKI databases for randomized controlled trials published up to March 1, 2026. The selection of studies strictly followed the Cochrane Risk of Bias in Randomized Trials tool, and the meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the Cochrane Systematic Reviewer's Manual. Data from 429 patients across 6 studies were included in the quantitative synthesis. Results: The results showed that post-treatment depression scale scores in the MST group were 0.329 higher than those in the ECT group (95% CI: 0.119-0.539, I² = 9.4%, P = 0.0021), suggesting that the antidepressant efficacy of MST was inferior to that of ECT. In the neurocognitive subgroup analysis, MST performed significantly better than ECT in verbal fluency (SMD = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.19-1.31, P = 0.0088), immediate memory (SMD = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.35-1.01, P < 0.0001), delayed memory (SMD = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.28-0.94, P = 0.0003), and verbal learning (SMD = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.18-0.95, P = 0.0037). Conclusions: Our evidence-based study conducted a meta-analysis of the antidepressant efficacy of MST and its effects on cognitive function. The evidence from this study suggests that MST may be slightly less effective than ECT in treating depression but may offer advantages in terms of cognitive preservation; further research is needed to confirm these findings.
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.