Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38779227›Full record

ReviewCureus2024

Revisiting Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing Therapy for Post-traumatic Stress Disorder: A Systematic Review and Discussion of the American Psychological Association's 2017 Recommendations.

Sasha Vereecken, German Corso

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. 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

2 authors.

Sasha VereeckenDepartment of Medicine, Saint James School of Medicine, The Quarter, AIA.
German CorsoDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Tropical Texas Behavioral Health, Harlingen, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This literature review evaluates the efficacy and clinical applications of eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) therapy for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The review highlights the effectiveness of EMDR in reducing PTSD symptoms and explores variations in treatment protocols, populations studied, and outcome measures. We conducted systematic searches of multiple databases, supplemented with manual searches and reference list exploration. The inclusion criteria focused on English-language studies published between January 2000 and June 2023, with a specific emphasis on adult psychiatric patients with PTSD receiving EMDR treatment. The review utilized Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for narrative literature reviews. Out of 867 identified studies, 16 met the eligibility criteria. Most studies found that EMDR was superior in relieving PTSD when compared to controls. Eleven of the 16 selected studies demonstrated improvement in PTSD symptoms. An additional three studies noted an improvement in PTSD symptoms when compared to their waitlist control counterparts. One study found EMDR superior in combating depressive symptoms when compared to rapid eye movement desensitization. EMDR therapy is an appropriate treatment for PTSD. Although some studies compared to waitlist controls, and others have a small number of participants, the data supports the use of EMDR for PTSD. Future studies are needed to continue to better understand the mechanism and application in different populations.

Indexed as

cognitive behaviour therapyeye movement desensitization and reprocessinghypnosispost traumatic stress disorder (ptsd)psychotherapy

Identifiers

PMID38779227
PMCPMC11111257

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.