Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38025421›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2023

The effectiveness, efficiency, and acceptability of EMDR vs. EMDR 2.0 vs. the Flash technique in the treatment of patients with PTSD: study protocol for the ENHANCE randomized controlled trial.

Valentijn V P Alting van Geusau, Ad de Jongh, Mae D Nuijs, Thomas C Brouwers, Mirjam Moerbeek, Suzy J M A Matthijssen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Valentijn V P Alting van GeusauAltrecht Academic Anxiety Center, Altrecht GGz, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Ad de JonghAcademic Center for Dentistry Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam and VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Mae D NuijsAltrecht Academic Anxiety Center, Altrecht GGz, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Thomas C BrouwersAltrecht Academic Anxiety Center, Altrecht GGz, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Mirjam MoerbeekDepartment of Methodology and Statistics, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Suzy J M A MatthijssenAltrecht Academic Anxiety Center, Altrecht GGz, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Altrecht GGZ · NLAcademic Center for Dentistry Amsterdam · NLArq Psychotrauma Expert Group · NLUtrecht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Several widely studied therapies have proven to be effective in the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). However, there is still room for improvement because not all patients benefit from trauma-focused treatments. Improvements in the treatment of PTSD can be achieved by investigating ways to enhance existing therapies, such as eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) therapy, as well as exploring novel treatments. The purpose of the current study is to determine the differential effectiveness, efficiency, and acceptability of EMDR therapy, an adaptation of EMDR therapy, referred to as EMDR 2.0, and a novel intervention for PTSD, the so-called Flash technique. The second aim is to identify the moderators of effectiveness for these interventions. This study will be conducted among individuals diagnosed with PTSD using a randomized controlled trial design. Methods: A total of 130 patients diagnosed with (complex) PTSD will be randomly allocated to either six sessions of EMDR therapy, EMDR 2.0, or the Flash technique. The primary outcomes used to determine treatment effectiveness include the presence of a PTSD diagnosis and the severity of PTSD symptoms. The secondary outcomes of effectiveness include symptoms of depression, symptoms of dissociation, general psychiatric symptoms, and experiential avoidance. All patients will be assessed at baseline, at 4-week post-treatment, and at 12-week follow-up. Questionnaires indexing symptoms of PTSD, depression, general psychopathology, and experiential avoidance will also be assessed weekly during treatment and bi-weekly after treatment, until the 12-week follow-up. Efficiency will be assessed by investigating the time it takes both to lose the diagnostic status of PTSD, and to achieve reliable change in PTSD symptoms. Treatment acceptability will be assessed after the first treatment session and after treatment termination. Discussion: This study is the first to investigate EMDR 2.0 therapy and the Flash technique in a sample of participants officially diagnosed with PTSD using a randomized controlled trial design. This study is expected to improve the available treatment options for PTSD and provide therapists with alternative ways to choose a therapy beyond its effectiveness by considering moderators, efficiency, and acceptability. Trial registration: The trial was retrospectively registered in the ISRCTN registry at 10th November 2022 under registration number ISRCTN13100019.

Indexed as

2.0acceptabilityeffectivenessefficiencyEMDRFlashPTSDrandomized controlled trial

Identifiers

PMID38025421
PMCPMC10665892
OpenAlexW4388615937

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.