Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 11:45, 12 February 2025

Revision as of 11:46, 12 February 2025

Line 37:

Most meta-analyses have found that the inclusion of bilateral eye-movements within EMDR makes little or no difference to its effect.<ref name=ps-in>{{cite book |chapter=Chapter 4: Pseudoscience in Treating Adults Who Experienced Trauma |title=Science and Pseudoscience in Social Work Practice |vauthors=Thyer BA, Pignotti MG |year=2015 |publisher=Springer |pages=106, 146 |doi=10.1891/9780826177698.0004 |isbn=9780826177681}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Cuijpers P, Veen SC, Sijbrandij M, Yoder W, Cristea IA | title = Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing for mental health problems: a systematic review and meta-analysis | journal = Cognitive Behaviour Therapy | volume = 49 | issue = 3 | pages = 165–180 | date = May 2020 | pmid = 32043428 | doi = 10.1080/16506073.2019.1703801 | s2cid = 202289231 | doi-access = free | hdl = 11577/3461344 | hdl-access = free }}</ref><ref name="RodenburgBenjaminde Roos2009">{{cite journal | vauthors = Rodenburg R, Benjamin A, de Roos C, Meijer AM, Stams GJ | title = Efficacy of EMDR in children: a meta-analysis | journal = Clinical Psychology Review | volume = 29 | issue = 7 | pages = 599–606 | date = November 2009 | pmid = 19616353 | doi = 10.1016/j.cpr.2009.06.008 | quote-page = {{page needed|date=May 2024}} | quote = "Results indicate efficacy of EMDR when effect sizes are based on comparisons between the EMDR and the non-established trauma treatment or the no-treatment control groups, and the incremental efficacy when effect sizes are based on comparisons between the EMDR and the established (CBT) trauma treatment." }}</ref> Meta-analyses have also described a high risk of [[allegiance bias]] in EMDR studies.<ref name="CuijpersVeenSijbrandij2020">{{cite journal | vauthors = Cuijpers P, Veen SC, Sijbrandij M, Yoder W, Cristea IA | title = Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing for mental health problems: a systematic review and meta-analysis | journal = Cognitive Behaviour Therapy | volume = 49 | issue = 3 | pages = 165–180 | date = May 2020 | pmid = 32043428 | doi = 10.1080/16506073.2019.1703801 | quote = "EMDR was found to be significantly more effective than other therapies in the treatment of PTSD. However, these results are not convincing for a number of reasons. First, there were few studies with low risk of bias. Furthermore, studies with low risk of bias did not point at a significant difference between EMDR and other therapies. The difference between studies with low risk of bias and those with at least some risk of bias was significant and we found considerable indications for researcher allegiance. Because studies with low risk of bias found no difference between EMDR and other therapies, we conclude that there is not enough evidence to decide about the comparative effects of EMDR." | quote-page = {{page needed|date=May 2024}} | s2cid = 202289231 | eissn = 1651-2316 | doi-access = free | hdl = 11577/3461344 | hdl-access = free }}</ref> One 2013 meta-analysis with fewer exclusion criteria found a moderate effect.<ref name=pmid23266601>{{cite journal | vauthors = Lee CW, Cuijpers P | title = A meta-analysis of the contribution of eye movements in processing emotional memories | journal = Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry | volume = 44 | issue = 2 | pages = 231–239 | date = June 2013 | pmid = 23266601 | doi = 10.1016/j.jbtep.2012.11.001 | url = http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/id/eprint/13100/ }}</ref>

===Training===

Shapiro was criticized for repeatedly increasing the length and expense of training and certification, allegedly in response to the results of controlled trials that cast doubt on EMDR's efficacy.<ref name="1999 Skeptic">{{cite journal|title=Eye Movement Magic: Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing|journal=Skeptic|volume=7|issue=4|year=1999| vauthors = Rosen GM, Mcnally RJ, Lilienfeld SO | author-link3=Scott Lilienfeld | url=http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/14-05-21/#feature}}</ref><ref name="Herbert">{{cite journal | vauthors = Herbert JD, Lilienfeld SO, Lohr JM, Montgomery RW, O'Donohue WT, Rosen GM, Tolin DF | title = Science and pseudoscience in the development of eye movement desensitization and reprocessing: implications for clinical psychology | journal = Clinical Psychology Review | volume = 20 | issue = 8 | pages = 945–971 | date = November 2000 | pmid = 11098395 | doi = 10.1016/s0272-7358(99)00017-3 | s2cid = 14519988 }}</ref> This included requiring the completion of an EMDR training program in order to be qualified to administer EMDR properly after researchers using the initial written instructions found no difference between no-eye-movement control groups and EMDR-as-written experimental groups. Further changes in training requirements and/or the definition of EMDR included requiring level II training when researchers with level I training still found no difference between eye-movement experimental groups and no-eye-movement controls and deeming "alternate forms of bilateral stimulation" (such as finger-tapping) as variants of EMDR by the time a study found no difference between EMDR and a finger-tapping control group.<ref name="1999 Skeptic" /> Such changes in definition and training for EMDR have been described as "ad hoc moves [made] when confronted by embarrassing data".<ref name ="McNally2003">{{cite journal | vauthors = McNally RJ |title=The demise of pseudoscience |journal=The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice |year=2003 |volume=2 |issue=2 |pages=97–101 |url=https://www.srmhp.org/0202/pseudoscience.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050211230751/https://www.srmhp.org/0202/pseudoscience.html |archive-date=2005-02-11 }}</ref>

== Research ==