Cited by 24Electroconvulsive Therapy StudiesTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesNeurological disorders and treatments

Cognitive effects of brief and ultrabrief pulse bitemporal electroconvulsive therapy: a randomised controlled proof-of-concept trial

Open access
Martin, Donel, Katalinic, Natalie, Hadzi-Pavlovic, Dusan, Ingram, Anna, Ingram, Nicholas, Simpson, Brett, McGoldrick, Jenny, Dowling, Nathan +1 more·2020·Psychological Medicine

Abstract

Background: Reduction of the pulse width has been reported to improve ECT outcomes with unilateral ECT (similar efficacy, fewer cognitive side effects), but has been minimally studied for bitemporal ECT. The only study comparing brief and ultrabrief pulse bitemporal ECT found reduced efficacy for bitemporal ultrabrief compared to bitemporal brief pulse stimulation. This randomised controlled trial (RCT) aimed to test if ultrabrief pulse bitemporal ECT results in fewer cognitive side effects than brief pulse bitemporal ECT, when given at doses adjusted with the aim of achieving comparable efficacy. Methods: Thirty-six participants were randomly assigned to receive ultrabrief (at 3 times seizure threshold) or brief (at 1.5 times seizure threshold) pulse bitemporal ECT given 3 times a week in a double-blind, controlled proof-of-concept trial. Blinded raters assessed mood and cognitive functioning over the ECT course. Results: Efficacy and cognitive outcomes did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups over the ECT course. The ultrabrief pulse group performed better on a test of visual memory assessed acutely after an ECT treatment. Conclusions: This study suggests there may be a small cognitive advantage in giving bitemporal ECT with an ultrabrief pulse when dosage is increased to match the efficacy of brief pulse bitemporal ECT, but the study was underpowered to fully examine this issue. Clinical Trials Registration: www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00870805.

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 · 10.1017/s0033291719000989

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • This study's findings of adverse cognitive effects after ECT matched other studies using similar neurocognitive measures, which found effects in complex visual scanning, cognitive flexibility, attention, and verbal learning and memory.

    “Our study findings of adverse cognitive effects after ECT were in line with other studies that have used similar neurocognitive measures (e.g., Trail Making Test, Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised) and found adverse effects for cognitive domains such as complex visual scanning and cognitive flexibility, attention, and verbal learning and memory.[48][49][50]”

    From Magnetic seizure therapy is efficacious and well tolerated for treatment-resistant bipolar depression: An open-label clinical trial (2020) · cites this paper as [49]

    The neuropsychological-outcomes passage (Discussion; page unavailable) lists the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test and other cognitive measures, so the paper is an example of a study using a similar measure. It does not list the Trail Making Test. The Cognitive outcomes section (page unavailable) reports an acute difference in face recognition between ECT conditions, but does not establish adverse effects across the claimed domains of complex visual scanning, cognitive flexibility, attention, and verbal learning and memory. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 41 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Wechsler D (1997) Wechsler Memory Scale -Third Edition administration and scoring manual.The Psychological Corporation: San Antonio, TX.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Martin, D., Katalinic, N., Hadzi-Pavlovic, D., Ingram, A., Ingram, N., Simpson, B., McGoldrick, J., Dowling, N., & Loo, C.
Affiliations
  • Black Dog Institute (AU)
  • St George Hospital (AU)
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • Melbourne Clinic (AU)
Corresponding author
Loo, Colleen
Venue
Psychological Medicine
Published
2019-05-02
Volume
50
Issue
7
Pages
1121-1128
ISSN
  • 0033-2917 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8978
OpenAlex
W2943457845
Cited by
24
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 5 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1
FWCI
1.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychological Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UNSWorks (University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • Medical Research Council
  • National Health and Medical Research Council (568678)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Electroconvulsive Therapy Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Neurological disorders and treatments
Keywords
electroconvulsive therapy, bitemporal ECT, cognitive side effects, visual memory, seizure threshold, mood, treatment efficacy
MeSH terms
Proof of Concept Study, Adult, Cognition, Major Depressive Disorder, Depressive Disorder, Major, Double-Blind Method, Electroconvulsive Therapy, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Treatment Outcome

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