Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 804

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Prospective, Randomized, Double-blind Comparison of Bilateral and Right Unilateral Electroconvulsive Therapy at Different Stimulus Intensities

Sackeim, Harold A., Prudic, Joan, Devanand, D. P., Nobler, Mitchell S., Lisanby, Sarah H., Peyser, Shoshana, Fitzsimons, Linda, Moody, Bobba J., Clark, Jenifer·2000·Archives of General Psychiatry

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Controversy persists about the use of right unilateral (RUL) and bilateral (BL) electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). While RUL ECT results in less severe short-term and long-term cognitive effects, there is concern that it is less efficacious than BL ECT. METHODS: In a double-blind study, 80 depressed patients were randomized to RULECT, with electrical dosages 50%, 150%, or 500% above the seizure threshold, or BL ECT, with an electrical dosage 150% above the threshold. Depression severity and cognitive functioning were assessed before, during, immediately after, and 2 months after ECT. Compared with baseline, responders had at least a 60% reduction in symptom scores 1 week after ECT, and were monitored for relapse for 1 year. RESULTS: High-dosage RUL and BL ECT were equivalent in response rate (65%) and approximately twice as effective as low-dosage (35%) or moderate-dosage (30%) unilateral ECT. During the week after the randomized phase, BL ECT resulted in greater impairment than any dosage of unilateral ECT in several measures of anterograde and retrograde memory. Two months after ECT, retrograde amnestic deficits were greatest among patients treated with BL ECT. Thirty-three (53%) of the 62 patients who responded to ECT relapsed, without treatment group differences. The relapse rate was greater in patients who had not responded to adequate pharmacotherapy prior to ECT and who had more severe depressive symptoms after ECT. CONCLUSION: Right unilateral ECT at high dosage is as effective as a robust form of BL ECT, but produces less severe and persistent cognitive effects.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archpsyc.57.5.425

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 804

Metadata

Authors
Sackeim, H. A., Prudic, J., Devanand, D. P., Nobler, M. S., Lisanby, S. H., Peyser, S., Fitzsimons, L., Moody, B. J., & Clark, J.
Venue
Archives of General Psychiatry
Published
2000-05-01
Volume
57
Issue
5
Pages
425
ISSN
0003-990X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2144700051
Cited by
804
References
1
FWCI
33.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-blind Comparison of Bilateral and Right Unilateral Electroconvulsive Therapy at Different Stimulus Intensities. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archpsyc.57.5.425
The paper
Sackeim, H. A., Prudic, J., Devanand, D. P., Nobler, M. S., Lisanby, S. H., Peyser, S., Fitzsimons, L., Moody, B. J., & Clark, J. (2000). A Prospective, Randomized, Double-blind Comparison of Bilateral and Right Unilateral Electroconvulsive Therapy at Different Stimulus Intensities. Archives of General Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.57.5.425

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.