Studies of the use of CES in depression and insomnia

Scientific studies of the use of CES in depression have been going on in the U.S. since the 1960s and over that time hundreds of patients have been involved collectively in those studies.

If we look at those studies separately, we can find the level of significance for most of them (it was reported in the publication), and in several others we can learn what percent of the patients in the studies improved and how much, while in others we can learn what percent improvement was seen by the group as a whole.

At this juncture, we have a way of statistically combining the results of such studies to get a grand summary of the effectiveness of CES.

For example, if we just look at the 21 double blind studies in the U.S. literature of the use of CES to treat anxiety, we find that a total of 807 research subjects were involved, and that 395 received CES treatment while 412 served as controls.  If we average the outcome of all the studies (we use a statistical technique called meta-analysis to do this) we find that there is an average 67% improvement among all the patients treated.  If a total of 38 of the anxiety studies, with varying research protocols, are analyzed together, they show an overall result of 58% gain.

Earlier, researchers at Harvard combined 8 CES studies of anxiety and found a 53% gain, while a researcher at a university in Oklahoma analyzed 8 studies of CES in the treatment of anxiety and arrived at a 51% gain.  Using this same type of statistical analysis, it can be anticipated that if 400 additional CES studies of anxiety are performed in the next 50 years, the outcome of 95% of all of them will range from 44% to 70% effectiveness.  An effectiveness of 20% is considered good in medical treatment.

Regarding depression, when 20 depression studies are analyzed, involving 937 patients, 869 of whom received actual CES stimulation, it is found that the mean effectiveness was 50%.  And as was said of anxiety above, if hundreds of additional depression studies are completed with CES in the next 50 or so years, 95% of them will have results falling between 32% and 68%.  No known antidepressant medication can  match those figures.

Interestingly, many physicians look at studies dating back to 1968 and say, “Those studies are so old.  I would rather see studies done within the past 5 years.”  It is not that they think depression has changed over the past37 years, or that CES has probably changed.  They just feel more comfortable not using “old” stuff when deciding on a new medical treatment.

That probably comes from the pharmaceutical industry’s constant replacing of one drug with a “better” drug of the same type.  When the company’s patent runs out on the current medication, it is absolutely necessary to market its “better” successor that can then be patented.  So where once they pushed penicillin, then ampicillin, they now push “broader spectrum” penicillins that have, if anything, more profound negative side effects.

scientific studies of the use of CES in depression have been going on in the U.S. since the 1960s and over that time hundreds of patients have been involved collectively in those studies.

If we look at those studies separately, we can find the level of significance for most of them (it was reported in the publication), and in several others we can learn what percent of the patients in the studies improved and how much, while in others we can learn what percent improvement was seen by the group as a whole.

At this juncture, we have a way of statistically combining the results of such studies to get a grand summary of the effectiveness of CES.

For example, if we just look at the 21 double blind studies in the U.S. literature of the use of CES to treat anxiety, we find that a total of 807 research subjects were involved, and that 395 received CES treatment while 412 served as controls.  If we average the outcome of all the studies (we use a statistical technique called meta-analysis to do this) we find that there is an average 67% improvement among all the patients treated.  If a total of 38 of the anxiety studies, with varying research protocols, are analyzed together, they show an overall result of 58% gain.

Earlier, researchers at Harvard combined 8 CES studies of anxiety and found a 53% gain, while a researcher at a university in Oklahoma analyzed 8 studies of CES in the treatment of anxiety and arrived at a 51% gain.  Using this same type of statistical analysis, it can be anticipated that if 400 additional CES studies of anxiety are performed in the next 50 years, the outcome of 95% of all of them will range from 44% to 70% effectiveness.  An effectiveness of 20% is considered good in medical treatment.

Regarding depression, when 20 depression studies are analyzed, involving 937 patients, 869 of whom received actual CES stimulation, it is found that the mean effectiveness was 50%.  And as was said of anxiety above, if hundreds of additional depression studies are completed with CES in the next 50 or so years, 95% of them will have results falling between 32% and 68%.  No known antidepressant medication can  match those figures.

Interestingly, many physicians look at studies dating back to 1968 and say, “Those studies are so old.  I would rather see studies done within the past 5 years.”  It is not that they think depression has changed over the past37 years, or that CES has probably changed.  They just feel more comfortable not using “old” stuff when deciding on a new medical treatment.

That probably comes from the pharmaceutical industry’s constant replacing of one drug with a “better” drug of the same type.  When the company’s patent runs out on the current medication, it is absolutely necessary to market its “better” successor that can then be patented.  So where once they pushed penicillin, then ampicillin, they now push “broader spectrum” penicillins that have, if anything, more profound negative side effects.

Insomnia studies have been harder to come by since apart from asking a subject how he slept last night, the difficulties can range up to such things as having them hooked up to a brain wave monitor all night as they sleep in a laboratory bed in a research center.  Nevertheless, we do find at least 20 studies in the CES scientific literature, and when these are put into a combined analysis, it is found that CES treatment resulted in a very strong 64% sleep improvement across the board.

Ref.: “How Understanding Science Helps Understand CES” By Ray B. Smith, Ph.D., M.P.A.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *