Talk:Electroconvulsive therapy

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Electroconvulsive therapy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6: 12 months

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Fictional and semi-fictional depictions of ECT was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 16 April 2010 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Electroconvulsive therapy. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Electroconvulsive therapy.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Medicine: Neurology / Psychiatry Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Neurology task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	Psychiatry portal This article is supported by the Psychiatry task force (assessed as High-importance).

Psychology Mid‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Epilepsy Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Epilepsy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of epilepsy and epileptic seizures on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EpilepsyWikipedia:WikiProject EpilepsyTemplate:WikiProject EpilepsyEpilepsy
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Why are we mentioning voltage and current, but not impedance?

Please, to make the information more correct, mention the follow information. It's crucially important.

"However, only about 1% of the electrical current crosses the bony skull into the brain because skull impedance is about 100 times higher than skin impedance (Weaver et al., 1976)." https://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/83887/excerpt/9780521883887_excerpt.pdf

Agreed. I hope this is covered in the article already. Biosthmors (talk) 08:20, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notable cases of controversial use?

Should not the article have a discussion of notable cases of misuse of the therapy, along with notable cases? There are cases, such as famed Bebop pianist Bud Powell, who have had treatment that in hindsight was quite detrimental to the individual in the long term.Dogru144 (talk) 08:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting Dogru144. According to a reliable source, "there is no basis to claim that ECT causes brain injury." Shouldn't medical claims be supported with either attribution or reliable medical sources? At DVT, for example, I've incorporated the narrative of Serena Williams. But I've taken care to mark it as a narrative. Maybe the good article Bud Powell isn't properly written regarding ECT. Biosthmors (talk) 08:29, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

anti-ECT bias?

I find this edit[1] to be problematic. 4 sources? We're beating people over the head. The word is so vague as to be unhelpful, and it is seemingly biased against this form of treatment. The spirit of the bold text at Wikipedia:Criticism and the guidance at Wikipedia:Be neutral in form, I'm reverting this edit. Biosthmors (talk) 08:19, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important to convey that this form of treatment is controversial. Failing to mention so would not be upholding a neutral point of view or conveying a balanced and comprehensive view of the subject. The fact that ECT is controversial and remains controversial is a fact supported by multiple sources, so I think it should be included in some capacity. Regarding the use of multiple sources, they are meant to affirm the factual basis of the statement, not to overwhelm. I used multiple sources due to the controversial nature of the statement and the fact that it would likely be challenged. The controversy surrounding ECT is widely documented and remains a point of discussion. If you feel there’s a way to phrase it more neutrally, I’d like to collaborate on adjustments. However, I believe omitting it entirely from the lead would result in an incomplete and potentially biased representation of the treatment. Diamonds1230 (talk) 10:23, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The 2022 review of ECT published in the New England Journal of Medicine uses the words stigma or stigmatized and underused, if I remember correctly. Simply saying something is controversial, especially in the wp:first sentence, as the first word to define it, is suspect. It immediately begs the question of "to whom is it controversial?" and "why?" If you do some digging in reliable sources and flesh that out, the "need" to use the word controversial might be obviated. I think of the word controversial as a lazy man's word to say some folks just don't like it. Kamala Harris is a controversial... Donald Trump is a controversial... It just doesn't work well. Maybe a featured quality ECT article would use the word controversial in the lead, maybe it wouldn't. To summarize, I do not believe the word controversial is appropriate as the first descriptive word in the first sentence. As wp:first sentence says, "Do not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject." Biosthmors (talk) 13:06, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]