Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42518933›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2026

Eye movement desensitisation and reprocessing for post-traumatic stress in survivors of critical illness (EMERALD): a mixed-methods, randomised, single-blind, parallel group-controlled, feasibility trial.

Andrew Bates, Rebecca Cusack, Hannah Golding, Helen Moyses, Hazel Southam, Sophie Rushbrook, Julie Highfield, Natalie Pattison, David S Baldwin, Michael P W Grocott

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05591625 (A Multi-centre, Randomised, Pilot Feasibility Study to Compare the Effectiveness of Eye-movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing Versus Usual Care in the Psychological Recovery of Intensive Care Survivors), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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.

NCT05591625 naunknown statusnot on this map

A Multi-centre, Randomised, Pilot Feasibility Study to Compare the Effectiveness of Eye-movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing Versus Usual Care in the Psychological Recovery of Intensive Care Survivors

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation TrustRan2023 to 2025Enrolled160ConditionsPost Traumatic Stress Disorder, Critical Illness, Eye Movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing, Depression, AnxietyArmsEye Movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  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

10 authors.

Andrew BatesNIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.
Rebecca CusackNIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.
Hannah GoldingNIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.
Helen MoysesNIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.
Hazel SouthamIndependent Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) Contributor, Southampton, UK.
Sophie RushbrookIntensive Psychological Therapies Service, Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust, Poole, Dorset, UK.
Julie HighfieldClinical Health and Staff Psychology, Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Gloucester, UK.
Natalie PattisonUniversity of Hertfordshire, East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust, Hatfield, UK.
David S BaldwinClinical and Experimental Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Michael P W GrocottNIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Eye movement desensitisation and reprocessing (EMDR) is a guideline-recommended treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), but evidence in survivors of critical illness remains limited. We assessed the feasibility, acceptability, and safety of EMDR for critical care survivors with clinically significant post-traumatic stress symptoms, and generated exploratory clinical outcome estimates to inform a future definitive trial. Methods: We conducted a mixed-methods, randomised, single-blind, parallel group-controlled, feasibility trial at three UK National Health Service hospitals. Adults (≥18 years) with an intensive care stay >24 h were approached before hospital discharge and followed within an observational cohort. At 2-3 months, participants were screened for post-traumatic stress symptoms (Impact of Event Scale-Revised); those scoring ≥22 were invited and randomly assigned (1:1) to EMDR plus treatment as usual (TAU) or TAU. EMDR comprised up to 16 sessions delivered face-to-face or online by accredited therapists. Primary outcomes were feasibility (recruitment, retention, intervention uptake, fidelity) and safety. Symptoms were assessed using Clinician-administered PTSD Scale for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-5 (CAPS-5) at 3 and 12 months. Analyses followed intention-to-treat principles. The trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05591625) and is closed to recruitment. Findings: Between Feb 20, 2023, and May 13, 2024, 160 patients were recruited to the observational cohort; 40 were randomised, with 20 allocated to EMDR plus TAU and 20 to TAU. Median age was 59.5 years (IQR 52.0-66.0); 21 participants (53%) were female and 19 (48%) were male. At 12 months, 39 (98%, 95% CI 86.8-99.9) of 40 randomised participants completed CAPS-5 follow-up. In the EMDR plus TAU group, 18 (90%, 95% CI 68.3-98.8) of 20 participants initiated treatment; mean sessions attended was 10.4 (SD 7.0), and 15 (75%) of 20 completed a full therapeutic course. Mean CAPS-5 score change was -15.6 (SD 12.5) in the EMDR plus TAU group and -1.6 (SD 11.8) in the TAU group, giving an exploratory unadjusted between-group difference of -14.1 points (95% CI -22.0 to -6.2). No treatment-related serious adverse events were identified. Interpretation: A staged trial pathway of symptom screening, clinician-rated PTSD assessment, randomisation, and EMDR delivery was feasible and broadly acceptable in survivors of critical illness with clinically significant post-traumatic stress symptoms. Exploratory clinician-rated PTSD outcome estimates were hypothesis-generating and support progression to a definitive multicentre trial, but should not be interpreted as evidence of treatment effectiveness. Funding: Andrew Bates was funded by National Institute for Health and Care Research Clinical Doctoral Research fellowship (grant number: NIHR302160).

Indexed as

Critical illnessEye movement desensitization reprocessingFeasibility studiesIntensive care unitsPost-traumaticStress disordersSurvivors

Identifiers

PMID42518933
PMCPMC13382324

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.