This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Glen N. Peterson, MD
Psychiatric Physicians Medical Group Inc Oakland, Calif

JAMA. 1986;255(15):2023.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.—

The proceedings of the consensus development panel convened by the National Institutes of Health on electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) in June 1985,¹ and the resulting consensus statement published in JAMA, raised questions about the consensus statement process in general and specific concerns over the handling of the ticklish subject of ECT.

One of the most curious practices of the current consensus panel format is the intentional selection of panelists who are expressly not expert in the topic (eg, ECT) under review, although otherwise generally knowledgeable and sagacious.² This panel of 14 included eight psychiatrists and representatives from neurology, law, psychology and business, and epidemiology. Moreover, to require a short time frame for hearing expert presentations and for preparing an authoritative statement would seem of limited value when grappling with such a complex subject.

Given these limitations, the statement on ECT describes with reasonable accuracy the potential . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?