Key result
Electroconvulsive therapy shows comparable effectiveness in research and real-world cohorts after adjusting for patient selection.
Why the study?
Electroconvulsive therapy is effective for major depressive disorder, but real-world outcomes may differ from research studies.
Does the effectiveness of electroconvulsive therapy differ between research and real-world cohorts in patients with major depressive disorder?
Cohort (n=1,892)
Yes
Does the effectiveness of electroconvulsive therapy differ between research and real-world cohorts in patients with major depressive disorder?
Effect estimate: OR 1.46 (95% CI 1.09-1.95)
Absolute Event Rate: 66.8% vs 58.9%
Electroconvulsive therapy demonstrates comparable effectiveness across research and real-world settings once patient selection criteria are accounted for.
Selection bias explains apparent ECT response gaps; supports comparable real-world effectiveness but leaves causal generalizability open.
Background Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is an effective treatment for major depressive disorder, yet real-world outcomes may differ from research studies. We compared ECT effectiveness in research versus real-world cohorts and examined whether in- and exclusion criteria and treatment characteristics explain potential differences. Method 1892 patients with MDD from the Dutch ECT Consortium (12 research, 10 real-world cohorts) were included. Outcomes were response (≥50% HDRS reduction), remission (HDRS <8), and change in depression severity (Δ-HDRS). Cohorts were compared on effectiveness and demographic, clinical and treatment characteristics. Logistic and linear regression estimated associations between cohort type and outcomes, unadjusted and adjusted for in- and exclusion criteria and additional clinical confounders. Results Research cohorts demonstrated higher response rates (66.8% vs. 58.9%, OR 1.46, 95% CI [1.09–1.95]) and greater symptom reduction (B 2.88, 95% CI [1.86–3.90]), while remission rates did not differ significantly. Cohorts differed on several clinical and treatment characteristics, partly reflecting in- and exclusion criteria used in research cohorts. After adjusting for these selection criteria, differences in response and Δ-HDRS were no longer significant (OR 1.20, 95% CI [0.86–1.69]; B 0.61, 95% CI [−0.29–1.51]). Adjustment for additional confounders marginally changed these estimates. In sensitivity analyses restricted to mixed-sites, differences were not significant in unadjusted and adjusted models. Conclusion In the Dutch ECT consortium, ECT demonstrates comparable effectiveness across research and real-world settings once patient selection is accounted for. These findings underscore the importance of considering cohort composition when interpreting treatment outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cobben et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Major depressive disorder (MDD) (n=1,892). Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) in research cohorts vs. Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) in real-world cohorts was evaluated on Response (≥50% HDRS reduction) (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.09-1.95). Electroconvulsive therapy effectiveness was comparable between research and real-world cohorts after adjusting for patient selection criteria (response OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.86-1.69).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: