Abstract
This commentary discusses the lack of rigorous placebo- or sham-controlled trials for electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). Further, it considers the scientific questions of whether the therapeutic effect of ECT is partly due to its non-seizure components, such as anesthesia and subthreshold electrical stimulation. Finally, further trials are suggested to compare ECT to treatments that highly resemble these non-ictal components. Such research could potentially answer these questions and explore the indications for these alternatives, which have less intense adverse effects.
Keywords
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
