Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39286565›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2024

Factors influencing quality of processing in EMDR therapy.

Alejandra Ramallo-Machín, Francisco J Gómez-Salas, Francisco Burgos-Julián, M A Santed-Germán, Ana Isabel Gonzalez-Vazquez

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07481890 (Feasibility and Efficacy of an EMDR Psychotherapeutic Intervention With Additional Procedures), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT07481890 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Feasibility and Efficacy of an EMDR Psychotherapeutic Intervention With Additional Procedures (EMDR Toolbox Method) in Improving the Psychological Well-Being of Patients Diagnosed With Oncological Disease: A Randomized Study.

TypeinterventionalSponsorLega Cancro TicinoRan2026 to 2027Enrolled46ConditionsCancer, Psychological DistressArmsSTANDARD EMDR, EMDR TOOLBOX METHOD
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

5 authors.

Alejandra Ramallo-MachínUniversidade da Coruña, Facultad de Ciencias, A. Coruña, Spain.
Francisco J Gómez-SalasFacultad de Psicología y Logopedia, Universidad de Málaga, Málaga, Spain.
Francisco Burgos-JuliánFacultad de Psicología, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
M A Santed-GermánFacultad de Psicología, Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED), Madrid, Spain.
Ana Isabel Gonzalez-VazquezDepartamento de Psiquiatría, Complexo Hospitalario Universitario de A. Coruña, A Coruña, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study presents a preliminary analysis of a new instrument oriented at the analysis of processes in EMDR trauma therapy, the Processing Difficulties Scale (PDS). This scale includes 17 items described by experienced EMDR consultants and practitioners as indicative of problems during memory reprocessing. The proposed factorial solution based on four factors explains a total variance explained of 55% and an adequate goodness of fit, based on the proposed indices: RMSEA = 0.07; TLI = 0.91; CFI = 0.95. Table 1 shows the factorial loads for each of the items. The first factor includes 5 items (7, 8, 9, 10, 11), the second factor includes 6 items (13, 14, 25, 27, 28, 31), the third factor includes 3 items (3, 16, 22) and the fourth factor includes 3 items (19, 23, 24). Confirmatory analysis confirms the factorial solution proposed in the exploratory analysis factor and based on four factors with 17 items. The analysis of internal consistency from Cronbach's alpha and the Omega index shows good internal consistency: Factor 1 (good processing; α = 0.92; ω = 0.94), Factor 2 (lack of generalization and/or absence of changes; α = 0.87; ω = 0.90), Factor 3 (poor emotional processing; α = 0.83; ω = 0.85) an Factor 4 (loss of dual attention; α = 0.82; ω = 0.83). In the case of the total scale, both coefficients exceeded 0.90, with an alpha of 0.92 and an Omega of 0.94. The convergent and discriminant validity criteria were estimated by calculating correlations, exploring the relationship between the factors resulting from the final result, the global severity index (GSI) of the SCL-90 and the level of improvement (NGS). These statistical analyses showed good levels of convergent and discriminant validity for all final factors. The PDS may offer a different perspective to analyze the controversy between clinicians and researchers about the need of a preparation phase in patients with complex early traumatization, dissociative symptoms and/or emotion dysregulation, and the different results in specific research around this topic. Exploring the problems in processing in a transdiagnostic way, in a preliminary analysis, we found that the number of early traumatic events measured with the ACE correlates positively with indicators of a loss of dual attention, while emotional dysregulation measured with the DERS does not predict poor processing. Finally, the dissociation measured with the DES seems to correlate positively with the indicators of a loss of dual attention during processing, not seeming to predict poor processing but did show a negative correlation with the indicators of good general processing. These results partially support the findings of some authors on the involvement of certain variables in the processing of traumatic memories, and it may be interesting to evaluate processing styles and their relationship with various indicators, to develop specific interventions in phase 2 of EMDR therapy, thus improving clinical interventions.

Indexed as

EMDRemotional processingemotion regulationsymptoms-improvementtrauma

Identifiers

PMID39286565
PMCPMC11403636

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.