↓ Skip to main content

Study protocol for the randomised controlled trial: Ketamine augmentation of ECT to improve outcomes in depression (Ketamine-ECT study)

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychiatry, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
246 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Study protocol for the randomised controlled trial: Ketamine augmentation of ECT to improve outcomes in depression (Ketamine-ECT study)
Published in
BMC Psychiatry, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12888-015-0641-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Liam Trevithick, R. Hamish McAllister-Williams, Andrew Blamire, Tim Branton, Ross Clark, Darragh Downey, Graham Dunn, Andrew Easton, Rebecca Elliott, Clare Ellwell, Katherine Hayden, Fiona Holland, Salman Karim, Jo Lowe, Colleen Loo, Rajesh Nair, Timothy Oakley, Antony Prakash, Parveen K Sharma, Stephen R. Williams, Ian M. Anderson

Abstract

There is a robust empirical evidence base supporting the acute efficacy of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) for severe and treatment resistant depression. However, a major limitation, probably contributing to its declining use, is that ECT is associated with impairment in cognition, notably in anterograde and retrograde memory and executive function. Preclinical and preliminary human data suggests that ketamine, used either as the sole anaesthetic agent or in addition to other anaesthetics, may reduce or prevent cognitive impairment following ECT. A putative hypothesis is that ketamine, through antagonising glutamate receptors, protects from excess excitatory neurotransmitter stimulation during ECT. The primary aim of the ketamine-ECT study is to investigate whether adjunctive ketamine can attenuate the cognitive impairment caused by ECT. Its secondary aim is to examine if ketamine increases the speed of clinical improvement with ECT. The ketamine ECT study is a multi-site randomised, placebo-controlled, double blind trial. It was originally planned to recruit 160 moderately to severely depressed patients who had been clinically prescribed ECT. This recruitment target was subsequently revised to 100 patients due to recruitment difficulties. Patients will be randomly allocated on a 1:1 basis to receive either adjunctive ketamine or saline in addition to standard anaesthesia for ECT. The primary neuropsychological outcome measure is anterograde verbal memory (Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised delayed recall task) after 4 ECT treatments. Secondary cognitive outcomes include verbal fluency, autobiographical memory, visuospatial memory and digit span. Efficacy is assessed using observer and self-report efficacy measures of depressive symptomatology. The effects of ECT and ketamine on cortical activity during cognitive tasks will be studied in a sub-sample using functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS). The ketamine-ECT study aims to establish whether or not adjunctive ketamine used together with standard anaesthesia for ECT will significantly reduce the adverse cognitive effects observed after ECT. Potential efficacy benefits of increased speed of symptom improvement and a reduction in the number of ECT treatments required will also be assessed, as will safety and tolerability of adjunctive ketamine. This study will provide important evidence as to whether adjunctive ketamine is routinely indicated for ECT given for depression in routine NHS clinical practice. Current Controlled Trials: ISRCTN14689382 (assigned 30/07/2012); EudraCT Number: 2011-005476-41.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 246 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Unknown 242 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 33 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 10%
Researcher 24 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 21 9%
Student > Master 20 8%
Other 54 22%
Unknown 69 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 61 25%
Psychology 42 17%
Neuroscience 16 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 2%
Other 30 12%
Unknown 83 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 May 2016.
All research outputs
#14,281,717
of 25,391,066 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#3,107
of 5,442 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,919
of 292,014 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#49
of 88 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,391,066 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,442 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 292,014 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 88 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.