Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T02:41:37.925Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response to ‘ECT vs sham ECT for depression: do study limitations invalidate the evidence (and mean we should stop using ECT)?’ – CORRIGENDUM

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 October 2021

John Read
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Type
Corrigendum
Information
BJPsych Advances , Volume 27 , Issue 6 , November 2021 , pp. 426
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Royal College of Psychiatrists

There was an error in the title for this article. This has since been updated to reflect the correct title. The author and publisher apologise for this error.

References

Read, J. (2021). Response to ‘ECT vs sham ECT for depression: do study limitations invalidate the evidence (and mean we should stop using ECT)?’. BJPsych Advances, 27(5), 292–294. doi: 10.1192/bja.2021.40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.