ECT has been demonized for decades (thanks Miloš Forman) despite it being one of the most rapidly effective interventions in all of psychiatry, often when previous interventions are not possible or have failed.
2/12 Yes, ECT is a serious intervention requiring anesthetic support and medical monitoring. Memory loss is a common side effect and is sometimes long lasting.
But that must be balanced against the life-threatening nature of persistent severe depression and catatonia.
3/12 Some object to the basic premise of "electrocuting" the brain, but don't question the routine life-saving practice of electrical "shock" for cardiac resuscitation.
4/12 It is sometimes claimed that ECT causes "brain damage," citing persistent cognitive deficits as evidence in the absence of any neuropathological evidence.
See the recent debate on this subject in @bmj_latest here:
7/12 Still, if taken at face value, that APD brain volume loss = brain damage, then guess what ECT studies show?
An *increase* in fronto-limbic brain volume!
So that means ECT promotes "brain growth," right?
8/12
The evidence:
Meta-analysis by Gbyl et al. 2018:
"MRI studies do not support the hypothesis that ECT causes brain damage; on the contrary, the treatment induces volume increases in fronto-limbic areas."
11/12 Another 2003 meta-analysis from UK ECT Review Group:
"Real ECT was significantly more effective than simulated ECT... Treatment w/ ECT was significantly more effective than pharmacotherapy... ECT is an effective short-term treatment for depression"
And so, we can all agree that more/better ECT research needs to be done.
But the evidence indicates that the benefit for refractory depression & catatonia where few other options exist outweighs risk of serious adverse events. And evidence for "brain damage" is lacking.
1/ The problem with mood/affect is that if you trace the history of how the terms have been used, there's been considerable inconsistency and contradiction.
(see Ketai 1975, Owens et al 1979, Berner 1988, and Alpert et al. 1990 for the "semantic confusion" around the topic)
2/ Many have distinguished the terms based on duration/chronicity (e.g., mood is pervasive/enduring while affect is moment-to-moment) and subjective (mood)/objective(affect), but depending on the source, opposite claims have also been made about each.
3/ Owens makes a strong case for both terms depending on objective observation/inference so that accordingly, including "mood and affect side by side in a MSE amounts to a categorical mistake b/c it implies that there are 2 separate sets of observations."
1/ Practicing medicine involves a relationship between physician and patient. Psychiatry even moreso due to the focus on symptoms and internal experiences as opposed to objective/external signs which ironically is a frequent criticism of the field from a diagnostic standpoint.
2/ The perspectives of doctors, patients, and families are distinct. One is not necessarily more "deep" than another and each contributes something, reminiscent of the parable of the blind men and the elephant.
3/ Sometimes those perspectives--whether physician, patient, and/or family--are distorted. Certainly in psychiatry, it's recognized that cognitive distortions and delusions can be a challenge.
2/ Not clear why the Dept of Energy is looking into this anyway, but theirs is a minority opinion among the 6 other intelligence agencies who have opined on the subject.
Most others say Lab Leak unlikely.
3/ Meanwhile, DOE opinion is made with LOW CONFIDENCE.
2/ The op-ed author cites a new @CochraneLibrary meta-analysis of 78 randomized controlled trials (RCTs)—describing it as a "massive mega-study"—to claim that masks don't stop the spread of COVID-19.
But the analysis only included 6 RCTs that involved COVID-19! Not massive!
3/ The analysis looked at several interventions other than masks... leaving only 12 studies that looked at surgical masks (w/ only 2/12 involving COVID) and 5 looked at N95s (none of which involved COVID)!
Now, it's true that the effect of surgical masks vs. no masks was weak...
1/ I'm a firm believer in the heterogeneity of "mental disorders." While DSM constructs have clinical utility, most DSM disorders are not "one thing" and don't claim to be.
2/ Like Bleuler's "group of schizophrenias," mental disorders are wastebasket categories that likely represent many different biopsychosocial pathways to a given constellation of symptoms.
2/ Note that some of the oldest & most commonly used meds (e.g. divalproex) don't have FDA approval for maintenance Rx much less BP depression.
That doesn't always mean they aren't effective; sometimes it means they weren't extensively studied prior to (or after) going generic.
3/ When it comes to maintenance, several medications have approvals based on specific formulations (e.g. RIS LAI or QTP XR for BP maintenance) which probably doesn't matter while others are only approved for adjunctive treatment (i.e. added to lithium or divalproex) which does.