2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Comparative efficacy, cognitive effects and acceptability of electroconvulsive therapies for the treatment of depression: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

      systematic-review

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          There have been important advances in the use of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) to treat major depressive episodes. These include variations to the type of stimulus the brain regions stimulated, and the stimulus parameters (eg, stimulus duration/pulse width). Our aim is to investigate ECT types using a network meta-analysis (NMA) approach and report on comparative treatment efficacy, cognitive side effects and acceptability.

          Method

          We will conduct a systematic review to identify randomised controlled trials that compared two or more ECT protocols to treat depression. This will be done using the following databases: Embase, MEDLINE PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, PsycINFO, Cochrane CENTRAL and will be supplemented by personal contacts with researchers in the field. All authors will be contacted to provide missing information. Primary outcomes will be symptom severity on a validated continuous clinician-rated scale of depression, cognitive functioning measured using anterograde verbal recall, and acceptability calculated using all-cause drop-outs. Secondary outcomes will include response and remission rates, autobiographical memory following a course of ECT, and anterograde visuospatial recall.

          Bayesian random effects hierarchical models will compare ECT types. Additional meta-regressions may be conducted to determine the impact of effect modifiers and patient-specific prognostic factors if sufficient data are available.

          Discussion

          This NMA will facilitate clinician decision making and allow more sophisticated selection of ECT type according to the balance of efficacy, cognitive side effects and acceptability.

          Ethics

          This systematic review and NMA does not require research ethics approval as it will use published aggregate data and will not collect nor disclose individually identifiable participant data.

          PROSPERO registration number

          CRD42022357098.

          Related collections

          Most cited references107

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

          Flaws in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of randomised trials can cause the effect of an intervention to be underestimated or overestimated. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias aims to make the process clearer and more accurate
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Inference from Iterative Simulation Using Multiple Sequences

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations.

              The PRISMA statement is a reporting guideline designed to improve the completeness of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Authors have used this guideline worldwide to prepare their reviews for publication. In the past, these reports typically compared 2 treatment alternatives. With the evolution of systematic reviews that compare multiple treatments, some of them only indirectly, authors face novel challenges for conducting and reporting their reviews. This extension of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) statement was developed specifically to improve the reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses. A group of experts participated in a systematic review, Delphi survey, and face-to-face discussion and consensus meeting to establish new checklist items for this extension statement. Current PRISMA items were also clarified. A modified, 32-item PRISMA extension checklist was developed to address what the group considered to be immediately relevant to the reporting of network meta-analyses. This document presents the extension and provides examples of good reporting, as well as elaborations regarding the rationale for new checklist items and the modification of previously existing items from the PRISMA statement. It also highlights educational information related to key considerations in the practice of network meta-analysis. The target audience includes authors and readers of network meta-analyses, as well as journal editors and peer reviewers.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2022
                21 December 2022
                : 12
                : 12
                : e068313
                Affiliations
                [1 ]departmentDepartment of Psychiatry , University of New South Wales , Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
                [2 ]Black Dog Institute , Randwick, New South Wales, Australia
                [3 ]departmentResearch Center of Epidemiology (CRESS-UMR1153), INSERM, INRA , Universite de Paris , Paris, France
                [4 ]departmentDepartment of Psychiatry , Columbia University , New York, New York, USA
                [5 ]departmentDepartment of Psychiatry , Trinity College Dublin , Dublin, Ireland
                [6 ]departmentDepartment of Neurosciences , KU Leuven Psychiatric University Hospital KU Leuven , Leuven, Belgium
                [7 ]departmentDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences , Medical University of South Carolina , Charleston, South Carolina, USA
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Stevan Nikolin; stevan.nikolin@ 123456unsw.edu.au
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4440-9273
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0650-415X
                Article
                bmjopen-2022-068313
                10.1136/bmjopen-2022-068313
                9772645
                36549738
                8c0d911a-b71a-46d3-999b-29017806b040
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 14 September 2022
                : 07 December 2022
                Categories
                Mental Health
                1506
                1712
                Protocol
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Medicine
                depression & mood disorders,mental health,adult psychiatry
                Medicine
                depression & mood disorders, mental health, adult psychiatry

                Comments

                Comment on this article