Revisiting Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing Therapy for Post-traumatic Stress Disorder: A Systematic Review and Discussion of the American Psychological Association’s 2017 Recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This literature review evaluates the efficacy and clinical applications of eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) therapy for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The review highlights the effectiveness of EMDR in reducing PTSD symptoms and explores variations in treatment protocols, populations studied, and outcome measures. We conducted systematic searches of multiple databases, supplemented with manual searches and reference list exploration. The inclusion criteria focused on English-language studies published between January 2000 and June 2023, with a specific emphasis on adult psychiatric patients with PTSD receiving EMDR treatment. The review utilized Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for narrative literature reviews. Out of 867 identified studies, 16 met the eligibility criteria. Most studies found that EMDR was superior in relieving PTSD when compared to controls. Eleven of the 16 selected studies demonstrated improvement in PTSD symptoms. An additional three studies noted an improvement in PTSD symptoms when compared to their waitlist control counterparts. One study found EMDR superior in combating depressive symptoms when compared to rapid eye movement desensitization. EMDR therapy is an appropriate treatment for PTSD. Although some studies compared to waitlist controls, and others have a small number of participants, the data supports the use of EMDR for PTSD. Future studies are needed to continue to better understand the mechanism and application in different populations.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".