I think it's very reasonable to reject one method of treatment just from the side effects alone. I also think it's important to look at the "risk/reward" by loo

I think it's very reasonable to reject one method of treatment just from the side effects alone. I also think it's important to look at the "risk/reward" by looking at how much more effective ECT was against ketamine. > The overall pooled SMD for depression symptoms for ECT when compared with ketamine was −0.69 (95% CI, −0.89 to −0.48; Cochran Q, P = .15; I2 = 39%), suggesting an efficacy advantage for ECT compared with ketamine for depression severity. > Both ketamine and ECT had unique adverse effect profiles (ie, ketamine: lower risks for headache and muscle pain; ECT: lower risks for blurred vision, vertigo, diplopia/nystagmus, and transient dissociative/depersonalization symptoms). Perhaps you'd reach the same conclusion as you did, and I think the paper puts it best: > Although ECT may be more efficacious than ketamine in the acute phase, treatment options should be individualized and patient-centered, considering different adverse effect profiles and patient preferences.