EMDR as a Therapeutic Treatment for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome: A Case Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is characterized by ongoing pain, swelling, and stiffness following an acute injury. CRPS is difficult to diagnose, significantly impacts functioning, and is frequently incurable. Current treatments are pharmacotherapy, surgery, and physiotherapy. This case report describes the use of eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) in the psychotherapeutic treatment of a woman diagnosed with CRPS in 2009 as a result of injuries sustained during an assault in 2004. This article reports on EMDR treatment provided 1–2 years after her diagnosis. At initial assessment, the client was debilitated and suicidal, unable to work or care for her children, and dependent on her family for financial support because of CRPS. Two phases of 7 EMDR sessions were provided; the first focused on past traumatic experiences; the second addressed her pain with Grant’s (2009) EMDR chronic pain protocol. At the end of treatment, the client reported decreased pain, decreased substance dependence, improved mood and outlook, and was able to resume part-time work. Results were maintained at 8-month follow-up and suggest that EMDR was helpful for this client in reducing the symptoms associated with CRPS.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".