Journal of affective disorders · 2025
Efficacy of cranial electrotherapy stimulation for treating primary and secondary depression in adults: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
СтатьяМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Liu Shu-Yen, Chen Ruey, Wang Chia-Hui, Banda Kondwani Joseph, Sung Chien-Mei, Chang Li-Fang, Fajarini Melati, Chou Kuei-Ru
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Antidepressants use is linked to poor response, treatment discontinuation, and treatment-resistant depression. However, evidence regarding efficacy of cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES) in treating depression is limited. Therefore, we conducted the first meta-analysis to explore efficacy of CES in treating primary and secondary depression in adults.
METHODS: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, EBSCOHost, and Cochrane Library were comprehensively searched. Dersimonian-Lard random-effects model in Comprehensive Meta-Analysis 4.0 was used, presenting Hedges' g with corresponding 95 % confidence interval (CI) for depressive symptoms and Quality of life (QoL) while odds ratio (OR) for safety and acceptability of CES. Heterogeneity was examined using Cochrane's Q and I2 statistics with moderator analysis determining sources of variation.
RESULTS: Sixteen randomized controlled trials involving 1148 adults were included. CES significantly reduced depressive symptoms with small effect (g = -0.33 [95%CI -0.46, -0.20]) compared to non-CES treatment; it was safe (OR = 0.84 [95%CI 0.32, 2.18]) and acceptable (OR = 0.72 [95%CI 0.41, 1.27]). CES revealed non-significant effect on improving QoL (g = 0.13 [95%CI -0.05, 0.31]). Substantial improvement of CES were observed for females (β = -0.010 [95%CI -0.019, -0.0003]), secondary depression (g = -0.42 [95%CI -0.58, -0.27]), current >100 μA (g = -0.38 [95%CI -0.58, -0.18]), frequency > 100 Hz (g = -0.50 [95%CI -0.81, -0.20]), length ≤ 30 min (g = -0.39 [95%CI -0.64, -0.14]), sessions/week ≤5times (g = -0.34 [95%CI -0.49, -0.19]), and duration ≤5 weeks (g = -0.45 [95%CI -0.63, -0.27]).
CONCLUSIONS: CES, a safe adjunctive therapy, demonstrates small effect in the treatment of depression. Future research should explore long-term effects of CES for treating adults with depression.
METHODS: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, EBSCOHost, and Cochrane Library were comprehensively searched. Dersimonian-Lard random-effects model in Comprehensive Meta-Analysis 4.0 was used, presenting Hedges' g with corresponding 95 % confidence interval (CI) for depressive symptoms and Quality of life (QoL) while odds ratio (OR) for safety and acceptability of CES. Heterogeneity was examined using Cochrane's Q and I2 statistics with moderator analysis determining sources of variation.
RESULTS: Sixteen randomized controlled trials involving 1148 adults were included. CES significantly reduced depressive symptoms with small effect (g = -0.33 [95%CI -0.46, -0.20]) compared to non-CES treatment; it was safe (OR = 0.84 [95%CI 0.32, 2.18]) and acceptable (OR = 0.72 [95%CI 0.41, 1.27]). CES revealed non-significant effect on improving QoL (g = 0.13 [95%CI -0.05, 0.31]). Substantial improvement of CES were observed for females (β = -0.010 [95%CI -0.019, -0.0003]), secondary depression (g = -0.42 [95%CI -0.58, -0.27]), current >100 μA (g = -0.38 [95%CI -0.58, -0.18]), frequency > 100 Hz (g = -0.50 [95%CI -0.81, -0.20]), length ≤ 30 min (g = -0.39 [95%CI -0.64, -0.14]), sessions/week ≤5times (g = -0.34 [95%CI -0.49, -0.19]), and duration ≤5 weeks (g = -0.45 [95%CI -0.63, -0.27]).
CONCLUSIONS: CES, a safe adjunctive therapy, demonstrates small effect in the treatment of depression. Future research should explore long-term effects of CES for treating adults with depression.