Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 494

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

ECT Remission Rates in Psychotic Versus Nonpsychotic Depressed Patients: A Report from CORE

Petrides, Georgios, Fink, Max, Husain, Mustafa M., Knapp, Rebecca G., Rush, A. John, Mueller, Martina, Rummans, Teresa A., O'Connor, Kevin M., Rasmussen, Keith G., Bernstein, Hilary J., Biggs, Melanie, Bailine, Samuel H., Kellner, Charles H.·2001·The Journal of ECT
DOI 10.1097/00124509-200112000-00003
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective To compare the relative efficacy of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) in psychotic and nonpsychotic patients with unipolar major depression. Methods The outcome of an acute ECT course in 253 patients with nonpsychotic (n = 176) and psychotic (n = 77) unipolar major depression was assessed in the first phase of an ongoing National Institute of Mental Health-supported four-hospital collaborative study of continuation treatments after successful ECT courses. ECT was administered with bilateral electrode placement at 50% above the titrated seizure threshold. The remission criteria were rigorous: a score ≤10 on the 24-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) after 2 consecutive treatments, and a decrease of at least 60% from baseline. Results The overall remission rate was 87% for study completers. Among these, patients with psychotic depression had a remission rate of 95% and those with nonpsychotic depression, 83%. Improvement in symptomatology, measured by the HRSD, was more robust and appeared sooner in the psychotic patients compared with the nonpsychotic patients. Conclusion Bilateral ECT is effective in relieving severe major depression. Remission rates are higher and occur earlier in psychotic depressed patients than in nonpsychotic depressed patients. These data support the argument that psychotic depression is a distinguishable nosological entity that warrants separate treatment algorithms.

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 · 10.1097/00124509-200112000-00003

Cites

34 of 34 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 34 references

Cited by

See all 494

Metadata

Authors
Petrides, G., Fink, M., Husain, M. M., Knapp, R. G., Rush, A. J., Mueller, M., Rummans, T. A., O'Connor, K. M., Rasmussen, K. G., Bernstein, H. J., Biggs, M., Bailine, S. H., & Kellner, C. H.
Venue
The Journal of ECT
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2001-12
Volume
17
Issue
4
Pages
244-253
ISSN
1095-0680 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1097/00124509-200112000-00003
OpenAlex
W1996128456
Cited by
494
References
34
FWCI
6.28
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: ECT Remission Rates in Psychotic Versus Nonpsychotic Depressed Patients: A Report from CORE. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00124509-200112000-00003
The paper
Petrides, G., Fink, M., Husain, M. M., Knapp, R. G., Rush, A. J., Mueller, M., Rummans, T. A., O'Connor, K. M., Rasmussen, K. G., Bernstein, H. J., Biggs, M., Bailine, S. H., & Kellner, C. H. (2001). ECT Remission Rates in Psychotic Versus Nonpsychotic Depressed Patients: A Report from CORE. The Journal of ECT. https://doi.org/10.1097/00124509-200112000-00003

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.