Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing" in English language version.
{{cite report}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of May 2024 (link){{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)Nevertheless, to date, given that there is no evidence that anything unique to EMDR is responsible for the positive outcomes in comparing it to no treatment and the florid manner in which it has been marketed, we are including it in this book... Another way in which EMDR qualifies as a pseudoscience is the manner in which it was developed and marketed... EMDR proponents have come up with ad hoc hypotheses to explain away unfavorable results that do not support its theory, which is one of the hallmark indicators of a pseudoscience... This type of post hoc explanation renders her theory unfalsifiable and thus places it outside the realm of science, because to qualify as scientific, a theory must be falsifiable.
{{cite report}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of May 2024 (link)Results indicate efficacy of EMDR when effect sizes are based on comparisons between the EMDR and the non-established trauma treatment or the no-treatment control groups, and the incremental efficacy when effect sizes are based on comparisons between the EMDR and the established (CBT) trauma treatment.
EMDR was found to be significantly more effective than other therapies in the treatment of PTSD. However, these results are not convincing for a number of reasons. First, there were few studies with low risk of bias. Furthermore, studies with low risk of bias did not point at a significant difference between EMDR and other therapies. The difference between studies with low risk of bias and those with at least some risk of bias was significant and we found considerable indications for researcher allegiance. Because studies with low risk of bias found no difference between EMDR and other therapies, we conclude that there is not enough evidence to decide about the comparative effects of EMDR.
1.6.20 EMDR for adults should: be based on a validated manual; typically be provided over 8 to 12 sessions, but more if clinically indicated, for example if they have experienced multiple traumas; be delivered by trained practitioners with ongoing supervision; be delivered in a phased manner and include psychoeducation about reactions to trauma, managing distressing memories and situations, identifying and treating target memories (often visual images), and promoting alternative positive beliefs about the self; use repeated in-session bilateral stimulation (normally with eye movements) for specific target memories until the memories are no longer distressing; include the teaching of self-calming techniques and techniques for managing flashbacks, for use within and between sessions.
Results indicate efficacy of EMDR when effect sizes are based on comparisons between the EMDR and the non-established trauma treatment or the no-treatment control groups, and the incremental efficacy when effect sizes are based on comparisons between the EMDR and the established (CBT) trauma treatment.
EMDR was found to be significantly more effective than other therapies in the treatment of PTSD. However, these results are not convincing for a number of reasons. First, there were few studies with low risk of bias. Furthermore, studies with low risk of bias did not point at a significant difference between EMDR and other therapies. The difference between studies with low risk of bias and those with at least some risk of bias was significant and we found considerable indications for researcher allegiance. Because studies with low risk of bias found no difference between EMDR and other therapies, we conclude that there is not enough evidence to decide about the comparative effects of EMDR.
EMDR was found to be significantly more effective than other therapies in the treatment of PTSD. However, these results are not convincing for a number of reasons. First, there were few studies with low risk of bias. Furthermore, studies with low risk of bias did not point at a significant difference between EMDR and other therapies. The difference between studies with low risk of bias and those with at least some risk of bias was significant and we found considerable indications for researcher allegiance. Because studies with low risk of bias found no difference between EMDR and other therapies, we conclude that there is not enough evidence to decide about the comparative effects of EMDR.
EMDR was found to be significantly more effective than other therapies in the treatment of PTSD. However, these results are not convincing for a number of reasons. First, there were few studies with low risk of bias. Furthermore, studies with low risk of bias did not point at a significant difference between EMDR and other therapies. The difference between studies with low risk of bias and those with at least some risk of bias was significant and we found considerable indications for researcher allegiance. Because studies with low risk of bias found no difference between EMDR and other therapies, we conclude that there is not enough evidence to decide about the comparative effects of EMDR.