A Comparative Study and Evaluation of Electric Shock Therapy in Depressive States

Status of electroconvulsive therapy: Review of the outcome literature.

“…Outcome was found to be progressively worse with increasing length of illness. Similar results were obtained with involutional and manic-depressive patients (Huston & Locher, 1948a, 1948b as well as with depressives as a group (Nystrom, 1964;Tillotson & Sulzbach, 1945). According to Hobson's (1953) data, however, depressed patients were more likely to improve with ECT if they suffered from an illness of sudden onset.…”

“…Frequencies varied from 2 treatments per day (King, 1958) to 1 every 2 weeks (Naidoo, 1956), with the typical frequency being 2-3 per week. Eight studies attempted to determine the optimal number of seizures for various disorders (e.g., Bagchi et al, 1945;Barton, Mehta, & Snaith, 1973;Huston & Locher, 1948a;Tillotson & Sulzbach, 1945). Only two of these studies (Bagchi et al, 1945;Tillotson & Sulzbach, 1945) assigned patients to groups on the basis of number of seizures induced.…”

“…Eight studies attempted to determine the optimal number of seizures for various disorders (e.g., Bagchi et al, 1945;Barton, Mehta, & Snaith, 1973;Huston & Locher, 1948a;Tillotson & Sulzbach, 1945). Only two of these studies (Bagchi et al, 1945;Tillotson & Sulzbach, 1945) assigned patients to groups on the basis of number of seizures induced. RECT, which is a modification involving a high frequency of treatment sessions, was tested in five controlled studies (Graber & McHugh, 1960;King, 1958King, , 1959aKing, , 1960.…”

“…The trends in both of these studies were nonsignificant. Likewise, it has been suggested that if no improvement follows 8-10 shocks (Tillotson & Sulzbach, 1945) or 13 shocks (Huston & Locher, 1948b) in the severe depressions, additional ECT is unlikely to be beneficial. Patients improving after 6 or fewer treatments also were found to experience higher rates of relapse (Oilman & Friedman, 1961).…”

The effectiveness of electroconvulsive therapy: A literature review

“…Three of them (Kalinowsky, 1944;Myerson, 1941;Smith et al, 1942) had no control groups, vague or non-existent definitions of "recovery", and the people assessing "recovery" were either the hospital staff or unidentified (in the Myerson study none of the 'schizophrenics' improved). In the fourth (Tillotson & Sulzbach, 1945) a control group of "clinically comparable patients" improved less often (50%) than ECT recipients (80%), but there was no definition of "improved" and no mention of who decided who was "improved".…”