A BJPsych Advances article by Ian Anderson, who I’ve talked about earlier than (eg. see earlier submit), has critiqued the assessment by Learn et al (2019) of the methodological issues of the obtainable 11 RCTs and 5 meta-analyses evaluating ECT with sham ECT. Anderson agrees that the RCT proof has limitations, as do the meta-analyses.
Impeaching medical research is simple as there are at all times methodological difficulties. Primarily, Learn et al are saying that the statistical benefit for ECT over sham ECT has not been demonstrated, whereas Anderson thinks it could have been. I do assume, although, that Anderson must spell out which research he’s counting on for that conclusion.
As with antidepressant research, the place I believe the statistical distinction total in medical trials between lively and placebo remedy can’t be denied, placebo amplification, for instance by means of unblinding, might nonetheless clarify any statistical distinction (eg. see earlier submit). Learn et al argue that not one of the ECT research convincingly display they’re double-blind.