Talk:Electroconvulsive therapy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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)."

Article has systematically biased and manipulative language that makes ECT appear more effective and safe than it is[edit]

The article contains a surprising amount of editorialized and biased language, including but not limited to:

      - Attempting to rationalize retrograde amnesia as a "positive" side effect.
      - Minimizing and writing only short sentences about negative effects like cardiac events, memory loss, cognitive impairment, and death.
      - Claiming that ECT was known to be "safe and effective" in the time of its invention
      - Claiming that ECT is known to be "safe and effective" at this time
      - Over-emphasis on individual case studies
      - A basic lack of scientific rigor including referring to an uncontrolled remission rate as an ECT response rate, claiming that this uncontrolled remission rate means that "most severely depressed patients respond to ECT" - which is frankly embarrassing to this community. 

It is clear that efforts need to be made to remove editorialized language and a focus on direct quotes from subjective reports, opinions, or speculations made in publications rather than identifying objective result information from studies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:9ECC:2500:D48F:C137:6D47:45CA (talk) 15:52, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unscientific and unsourced comments. Biased and unacceptable language. --Saidmann (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is an overt projection. The claim that ECT response rate is equal to uncontrolled remission rate is objectively unscientific and invalid. When any medical treatment's response rate is measured, it is measured in comparison to control for this reason.
Please stop vandalizing the page by using a child-like "no, you" attitude, and either provide detailed justifications and sources of this information. 2600:4040:9ECC:2500:D48F:C137:6D47:45CA (talk) 20:14, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please be specific, refer to specific examples, and provide specific justifications. Otherwise, please do not vandalize this page. 2600:4040:9ECC:2500:D48F:C137:6D47:45CA (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no such "claim" in the article. --Saidmann (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article made the claim multiple times, and this is logged in edits. You do not appear to want to put the effort into this, so please leave until which time you are. 2600:4040:9ECC:2500:D48F:C137:6D47:45CA (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In fact, if you even just read this Talk section, I refer to one of these claims "most severely depressed patients respond to ECT" and detail in the edit why it was removed. Please cease vandalizing this page. 2600:4040:9ECC:2500:D48F:C137:6D47:45CA (talk) 20:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Incomprehensible and chaotic language that cannot be replied to. --Saidmann (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You stated "There is no such "claim" in the article" - I provided evidence for you - and now cannot admit you were incorrect. This is another bad-faith response. If you cannot provide specifics and act in good faith, you provide no value to the page. 2600:4040:9ECC:2500:EC53:C80C:70ED:B058 (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two examples of confused and disruptive editing[edit]

  • Then you knocked out text that was referenced by two secondary sources - with the argument "unsupported by evidence" on 22:21, 12 February 2023.

These edits are typical for all your others in this article. They are not only disruptive, they could also be called fraudulent. There is no option but to undo such disruption. --Saidmann (talk) 15:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suspect that 2600:4040 is responding to the overall feeling, rather than to whether individual, discrete facts are supported by a particular source. That is, the article presents ECT as a valid medical treatment that could provide net benefit to most severely depressed people, and 2600:4040 may be feeling a little more like One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest about it. My impression is that this discrepancy between the current views of experts and the popular imagination (or the views of people who experienced more side effects than benefits – we see that pattern in other subjects, such as chemotherapy, too) is not exactly unusual.
The challenge for this article is to present the expert view, even though the expert view is not the popular view. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:42, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]