Talk:Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing

Has there been any new evidence on EMDR in the last 16 years?

@Bon courage, you've reverted several people who've said that evidence has been gathered in the last 16 years, even though there are multiple sources in the article that show that. Can we get consensus that evidence has been gathered in the last 16 years and therefore the 2008 point needs to be removed the summary? Tom B (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Has the National Institute of Medicine changed their view? It's due to mention. Research has tailed off since EMDR's heyday and many views are simply settled. Bon courage (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

what one country's institute said in 2008 isn't weighty enough to be in lead, compared with all the research undertaken since 2008 and all the institutions such as the UN, EU, UK etc, Tom B (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, now you're edit warring. Suppressing one view that you evidently don't like is POV-pushing. Bon courage (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I see no indication that their view has changed, and the IoM view would seem to be just as relevant as the other organizations mentioned in the lead. MrOllie (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, seems a bit odd to exclude orgs according to their view. Bon courage (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

not according to their view, but that it is out of date. That I see 2008 as 16 years ago and lots of evidence has been undertaken since then, isn't a point of view, it is maths, Tom B (talk) 08:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

it's also merely one institution from one country, not a government or the UN etc. Again, that I think that isn't a point of view, it's a fact. You thinking something the NHS and UN uses is fringe science is POV pushing and edit warring. That something is supported by the UN, EU and UK means it cannot be fringe or pseudoscience, Tom B (talk) 08:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

What rubbish. The most recent MEDRS on this seem to view it just as pseudoscientific fluff, working just because of the non-fluff basis (i.e. the not EMDR parts). Bon courage (talk) 09:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Got a source? that it is supported by the UN, EU and UK is not rubbish, Tom B (talk) 09:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

The rubbish is the WP:OR that because of this that or the other, we can ignore RS because it "cannot be" fringe or pseudoscience. I suggest reading this page's archives. Bon courage (talk) 09:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

That something is supported by the UN, EU and UK isn't OR, Tom B (talk) 09:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

the World Health Organization in 2023 recommended EMDR for adults and children treating PTSD with moderate evidence. The American Psychological Association recommended EMDR for PTSD treatment in 2023. Similarly, other international and national health organizations have provided varying levels of endorsement for EMDR, recognizing it as an effective treatment option for PTSD. I.e it cannot be fringe science. The World Health Organisation is not fringe, Tom B (talk) 09:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

And the thread at FTN is also useful.[1] Bon courage (talk) 09:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Of course it can be fringe science. These groups are subject to politics just like any other - look at the WHO's record on Traditional Chinese Medicine, the APA on Energy psychology. India has a whole ministry set up to promote Ayurveda and Homeopathy. MrOllie (talk) 11:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

This article is dangerous to those suffering from PTSD given the sources are outdated.

2023

National Center for PTSD. (2023). PTSD Trials Standard Data Repository (PTSD-Repository) [Data set]. https://ptsd-va.data.socrata.com

2022

Susanty, E., Sijbrandij, M., Srisayekti, W., Suparman, Y., & Huizink, A. C. (2022) The effectiveness of Eye Movement Desensitization for post-traumatic stress disorder in Indonesia: A randomized controlled trial. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 845520. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.845520

2018

International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies (ISTSS). (2018). ISTSS PTSD prevention and treatment guidelines: Methodology and recommendations. Author. Retrieved from: http://www.istss.org/getattachment/Treating Trauma/New-ISTSS-Prevention-and-Treatment-Guidelines/ISTSS_ PreventionTreatmentGuidelines_FNL-March-19-2019.pdf.aspx

2016

Cusack, K., Jonas, D. E., Forneris, C. A., Wines, C., Sonis, J., Middleton, J. C., Feltner, C., Brownley, K. A., Olmsted, K. R., Greenblatt, A., Weil, A, & Gaynes, B. N. (2016). Psychological treatments for adults with posttraumatic stress disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 43, 128-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2015.10.003 2600:1700:6E0:D930:CCC1:6784:2BB3:D42F (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Cusack et al. is already cited on the article. The others don't meet WP:MEDRS. MrOllie (talk) 19:03, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

'EMDR is controversial within the psychological community.'

Needs better referencing for such a broad claim regarding the views of an entire body, two sources are 20+ years old, and one recent citation is based on an online survey of 20 psychologists from turkey and bosnia, despite most of the article's contents discussing and/or referencing those working in america or western europe. Transgenderoriole (talk) 22:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

The sourcing is fine - keep in mind that the lead section is a summary of the rest of the article and is also considered to be supported by the citations found later - for example in the 'Pseudoscience' section. MrOllie (talk) 23:02, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

EMDR has since been reclassified as an evidence based treatment by much of the psychological community. The remaining controversy is around the mechanism underlying the technique - is it science based? [2] —Notgain (talk) 02:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Here’s a more recent critique with with McNally as coauthordoi:10.1007/978-3-319-24612-3_895 —Notgain (talk) 02:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

The remaining controversy is about whether the additions that EMDR makes on top of CBT actually do anything, or if the efficacy is solely due to the portions in common with CBT. MrOllie (talk) 02:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Does this quote (Wright et al 2024 doi:10.1017/S0033291723003446 ) sum it up?, They say "While the effectiveness of EMDR against [Weight List Control] has been established, it is unclear what the additive benefit of the eye movements are. Some researchers argue that the eye movements are unnecessary, while others argue that they have an added advantage" cites doi:10.5127/jep.02821 --Notgain (talk) 03:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

We have several other sources that make the point more clearly, they're already cited in the article. MrOllie (talk) 03:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure leaning heavily on the mcnally sources is enough either to verify the thought of the professional psychological community but I think removing those 3 current in line citations and updating them (i can't edit as page is restricted) should be fairly agreeable. In addition, the lead does mention disagreements between organisations/bodies regarding the effectiveness but only touches on critique of the actual method being untestable. While the lead does paint a mixed picture, I think the specific claim that EMDR is controversial within the psychological community (again, the community where?, government bodies or independent organisations/solo campaigners?) is vague and unecessarily generalising of both the practice and the critiques of various aspects of it (not to mention that EMDR practitioners are members of the professional psychological community too and require accreditation beforehand). It would be much more beneficial if the specifics of the controversy were explored as 'EMDR' and 'untestable methods that are part of EMDR' are not the same, and EMDR treatment plans/methods are not homogeneous across practioners. Transgenderoriole (talk) 11:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

You should have a look at the talk page archives, the present wording is a compromise solution that saw a lot of discussion. Reading that discussion should provide insight into why the article is at it is. MrOllie (talk) 12:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I edited the first sentence (diff), so that it now reads: "Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) is a form of psychotherapy that is a recommended treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder, but remains controversial within the psychological community." I made this change because the sentence as previously written did not accurately summarize the article as a whole. I recognize that the article contains a Pseudoscience section, but it also contains a Medical guidelines section that clearly indicates that EMDR is a recommended treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder. (Note that the more recent guidelines (2013–2023) review research studies that were not available when the earlier guidelines (2003, 2008)—that recommended against EMDR—were written.) // I reviewed the archived discussions, but I am not persuaded that the previous conclusory sentence accurately reflects the article's content. // I suggest concentrating on improving the article as a whole. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 12:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

fully agree Asto77 (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Society and culture

Is anything in this section due for this article? EMDR was important to these people, but were these people important to EMDR? I tend to think not. If the Oprah thingey was widely covered and significantly influenced public views on EMDR I could be convinced to move it to the "history" section, but I prefer removal. Draken Bowser (talk) 13:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Some WP:MEDTRIVIA is usual for medical topics, including media mentions that have garnered coverage. This would be the right place for them per MOS:MED. Bon courage (talk) 14:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 August 2024

Sources are credible but dated. The APA has published more recent studies backing the use of EMDR. This article condemns the practice as purple hat therapy which is not a widely accepted belief and this information is inaccurate and dangerous.

The initial definition is bias and lacks information. The source is outdated.

Change the statement “ (EMDR) is a form of psychotherapy that is a recommended treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder, but remains controversial within the psychological community.” This is an opinion not a definition of the treatment.

To reflect a more recent publication from the APA stating:

A structured therapy that encourages the patient to briefly focus on the trauma memory while simultaneously experiencing bilateral stimulation (typically eye movements), which is associated with a reduction in the vividness and emotion associated with the trauma memories.

Unlike other treatments that focus on directly altering the emotions, thoughts and responses resulting from traumatic experiences, EMDR therapy focuses directly on the memory, and is intended to change the way that the memory is stored in the brain, thus reducing and eliminating the problematic symptoms. “

Remove “ Treatment guidelines note EMDR effectiveness is statistically the same as trauma-focused behavioral therapy, and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council notes that this may be due to including most of the core elements of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT)” as this statement cannot be support by citation and it is common practice for therapy modalities to overlap.

Edit training section to included the APA guide to clinical practice:

Remove “ 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”

replace with the more factual information that EMDR training is widely available with several reputable agencies and cost varies depending on training. This information is easily accessible via quick google search “emdr training.”

Remove EMDR is recommended for the treatment of PTSD by various government and medical bodies citing varying levels of evidence, including the World Health Organization, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, and the US Departments of Veteran Affairs and Defense. The US National Institute of Medicine found insufficient evidence to recommend EMDR.[7]

Replace with:

EMDR has the highest recommendation across most clinical practice guidelines, including the Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense (VA/DoD) Clinical Practice Guideline for Management of PTSD, the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies (ISTSS), United Kingdom's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), and Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

Remove: EMDR is recommended for the treatment of PTSD by various government and medical bodies citing varying levels of evidence, including the World Health Organization, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, and the US Departments of Veteran Affairs and Defense. The US National Institute of Medicine found insufficient evidence to recommend EMDR.[7]

Replace with more current and accurate information: “ Early trials in the 1990's were less methodologically rigorous, resulting in conflicting results regarding how quickly the treatment worked and its efficacy. In the last several years, there have been more rigorous studies that support EMDR's efficacy using a 3-month protocol. RCTs have compared EMDR to waitlist/usual care and other trauma focused and non-trauma focused psychotherapies. Recent meta-analyses suggest that EMDR produces moderate to strong treatment effects in regard to PTSD symptom reduction, depression symptom reduction and loss of PTSD diagnosis”

2600:1700:6E0:D930:CCC1:6784:2BB3:D42F (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

References

 Not done This amounts to a request to whitewash the article and add promotional text. That's now how Wikipedia is written. - MrOllie (talk) 19:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)