A Meta-review of the Safety of Electroconvulsive Therapy in Pregnancy

Preeti Sinha, P. Goyal, C. Andrade
{"title":"A Meta-review of the Safety of Electroconvulsive Therapy in Pregnancy","authors":"Preeti Sinha, P. Goyal, C. Andrade","doi":"10.1097/YCT.0000000000000362","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Four systematic reviews have examined the safety of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) in pregnancy. These have varied widely in methods, findings, and conclusions. Methods We compared these reviews with regard to search strategy, study selection criteria, total number of studies identified, total number of patients included, findings related to safety and adverse events, and interpretation of results. Results The number of studies (number of cases) included in the reviews ranged from 16 (n = 300) to 67 (n = 169) with only one review stating reasons for exclusion of nonselected studies. We provide comparisons about how the reviews described patient characteristics, illness characteristics, ECT characteristics, confounder characteristics, and outcome characteristics; there was wide variation in these regards. We list adverse outcomes that were identified by some but not other reviews. We provide a detailed breakdown of the adverse maternal and fetal outcomes identified in each review. Finally, we examine how different reviews interpreted their findings; whereas some reviews provided reasons for ruling out ECT as an explanation for an adverse outcome, one review adopted the stance that all adverse outcomes were potentially ECT-related. Conclusions Our meta-review provides readers with comparative information on the strengths and limitations of the 4 systematic reviews, their findings, and their conclusions. It can assist with clinical decision making on the use of ECT in pregnancy by providing a more complete description of the available literature.","PeriodicalId":287576,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of ECT","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"30","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of ECT","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/YCT.0000000000000362","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 30

Abstract

Background Four systematic reviews have examined the safety of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) in pregnancy. These have varied widely in methods, findings, and conclusions. Methods We compared these reviews with regard to search strategy, study selection criteria, total number of studies identified, total number of patients included, findings related to safety and adverse events, and interpretation of results. Results The number of studies (number of cases) included in the reviews ranged from 16 (n = 300) to 67 (n = 169) with only one review stating reasons for exclusion of nonselected studies. We provide comparisons about how the reviews described patient characteristics, illness characteristics, ECT characteristics, confounder characteristics, and outcome characteristics; there was wide variation in these regards. We list adverse outcomes that were identified by some but not other reviews. We provide a detailed breakdown of the adverse maternal and fetal outcomes identified in each review. Finally, we examine how different reviews interpreted their findings; whereas some reviews provided reasons for ruling out ECT as an explanation for an adverse outcome, one review adopted the stance that all adverse outcomes were potentially ECT-related. Conclusions Our meta-review provides readers with comparative information on the strengths and limitations of the 4 systematic reviews, their findings, and their conclusions. It can assist with clinical decision making on the use of ECT in pregnancy by providing a more complete description of the available literature.
妊娠期电惊厥治疗安全性的荟萃综述
背景:四篇系统综述研究了妊娠期电休克治疗(ECT)的安全性。这些研究在方法、发现和结论上有很大的不同。方法:我们从检索策略、研究选择标准、确定的研究总数、纳入的患者总数、与安全性和不良事件相关的发现以及结果的解释等方面对这些综述进行比较。结果纳入综述的研究(病例数)从16 (n = 300)到67 (n = 169)不等,只有一篇综述说明了排除非入选研究的原因。我们对综述如何描述患者特征、疾病特征、ECT特征、混杂因素特征和结局特征进行了比较;在这些方面有很大的差异。我们列出了一些评价确定的不良后果,但没有其他评价确定。我们提供了一个详细的细分不良产妇和胎儿的结果确定在每个审查。最后,我们研究了不同的评论是如何解释他们的发现的;尽管一些综述提供了排除ECT作为不良结果解释的理由,但一篇综述采取了所有不良结果都可能与ECT相关的立场。我们的荟萃综述为读者提供了4个系统综述的优势和局限性、研究结果和结论的比较信息。它可以通过提供对现有文献的更完整的描述来帮助临床决策在妊娠中使用电痉挛疗法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信