Talk:Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Undue weight on the 2013 meta analysis? Not enough on the 2020

I think we need to make a WP:MEDRS pass on this article. In particular, a lot hinges on the 2013 (Lee & Cuijpers) review. However, in the 2020 meta analysis they say they could not "confirm" the 2013 review. Further, in the 2020 analysis they say it is the "first systematic review of randomized trials examining the effects of EMDR for any mental health problem." From the text of the article a lay reader gets the impression that the quality of the research is much better than it really is. The 2013 analysis is presented as more definitive than it is. If I'm reading this right, we should probably make it more clear that the previous reviews are not reviews of randomized trials. And the 2013 review is particularly weak. Persuasive in this regard is the fact that one of the leads on the 2013 analysis (Cuijpers) is the lead on the 2020 one. Further, I think some low quality and old studies should be deleted from the article. Does anyone want to help with this?DolyaIskrina (talk) 16:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Dr. Novella, Pseudoscience and NOPROMO

@JCJC777: I think it worth discussing your recent reversions of my edits here in Talk. Dr. Novella is a highly credentialed practicing clinical neurologist. I think that makes him an expert on the neurological claims being made about EMDR, don't you? As to whether or not the site Science Based Medicine is WP:RS -- Yes, yes it is. What's more, the specific quote which you cut (see below) gives a valuable big picture of what exactly is being debated here. Critics aren't just saying that the underlying theory is unfalsifiable. Secondly, the analogy to aspirin is problematic. I get your point, so I haven't cut it yet. However, technically unless you can find WP:RS using aspirin in defense of EMDR, then what we have is SYNTH and WP:OR. What's more broadly troubling me (see my comment above) is that when a lay person reads this page, it seems to say that there has been a lot of research and it seems to mostly support the claims. When in fact, the best and most recent research is saying that it has limited application short term effects for PTSD and the broader claims for other conditions are not (yet?) supported. Let's make sure this page isn't verging into PROMO. My specific suggestion: I'd like the ==Pseudoscience== subheading to include the Novella quote and be closer to what I had there before. If you can find WP:RS that supports the idea about aspirin, I think we should keep it, but until we find something like that, it's probably a cut, or, oddly, we should cut the irrelevant citation and let the sentence stand as an unsupported sentence. LMK what you think.

"[T]he false specificity of these treatments is a massive clinical distraction. Time and effort are wasted clinically in studying, perfecting, and using these methods, rather than focusing on the components of the interaction that actually work.

DolyaIskrina (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi DolyaIskrina, thanks for all you are doing for wiki.

I'm happy to agree to your suggestions.

I guess I was wanting (a) the casual reader to get the sense that, although better research is needed, that a number of the small studies look hopeful, and that EMDR really does seem to help some people, with no adverse side effects that I all aware of, and thus 'open the door' to them maybe using it for themselves or loved ones. (b) the researcher reading this to be encouraged to consider doing some of the future research needed.

But maybe both those goals are inappropriate for a wiki article.

Best JCJC777 (talk) 02:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

i.e. having the Novella quote so strong up there seems an unnecessary and over-harsh 'slamming of the door' which will put off both public and researchers from using and researching something that, although perhaps off-putting to some (competitive therapies, and to general skeptics), does seem to really help some people. JCJC777 (talk) 02:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Have you had a chance to check out WP:MEDRS? I understand that you are trying to make good faith edits, but they are amounting to promotion and advocacy. Our individual opinions, even if we happen to be actual experts ourselves (in fact, especially if we happen to be actual experts or practitioners) are not supposed to enter into it. It's best to let qualified and reliable sources do the talking, and if you want to do advocacy that should be done in other forms of media. Then those sources can be used as citations here, not the other way around. DolyaIskrina (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Merger proposal

I propose to merge Bilateral stimulation into EMDR. As far as I can tell, Bilateral stimulation is a concept that only makes sense as part of EMDR. And even so, its value to EMDR is disputed. So an independent article about a contested part of EMDR is not notable. Let's discuss what from the Bilateral stimulation page would be of use on this page. Cheers. DolyaIskrina (talk) 20:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks DolyaIskrina. My view is the two articles should remain separate. Research has focused on eye movement effects completely apart from any EMDR connection. In the future this trend may contiue. I think it is wrong to 'bury' bilateral stimulation within the EMDR article. I would probably go the other way; we should possibly take some of the eye movement comment and refs out of the EMDR article and move them to the bilateral stimulation article. JCJC777 (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Howso? What specific references support this?

I've asked for help at WP:FTN. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to do the merger in a day or two. Speak now or forever hold your peace.DolyaIskrina (talk) 04:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

How emdr really would work.

Okay, so when you think about the process of this therapy. You are working threw a rem inducing state the deepest point into our subconscious At any given point we are only using 4-6% of our concious mind, 94-96% of any choice we make or path we choose is subconscious so directly rewriting the make up of my thoughts and my memories LeighShaeLynne (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

This YouTube video by one of the authors of a recent paper published in Nature I believe, mentions four other recent papers all indicating how it works. I'll list it here in case anyone wants to follow up; it's not my area of expertise. Basically, when you move forward, things in your peripheral vision appear to slide away to the left and right. In other words, these left and right visual motions are a cue that you’re moving towards something. Researchers determined this experimentally, and in particular that it’s connected to a third strategy beyond the hard-wired choices of Flight or Flight. When you move forward in the face of a threat (in a healthy way), acetylcholine suppresses the activity of the amygdala and releases dopamine as a reward system. This is an ancient mechanism of the visual system hardwired into the brain, common to many species. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZVw-9ThmSM and https://www.hubermanlab.com/publications.html Lukekendall (talk) 11:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

LukeKendall:: your suggestion and reference to the youtube video by Dr. Andrew Huberman (tenured Professor of Neurobiology and Ophthalmology at Stanford University School of Medicine) is right-on-target. Extremely useful. Concur this material should get coverage in this wikipedia article. I might try a shot or 'jab' at it. James Rodriguez 10:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Misleading introduction

The edit made to the introduction of EMDR is false and misleading. Please correct it. It is referenced from one article and listed as of 2017 not 2020. 184.66.239.83 (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Last sentence in intro is an opinion and not objective

“Even though EMDR is effective, critics(who?) call it a pseudoscience because only the desensitization component has scientific support.”(where is the source for this?) SteinOnkel (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Good point (if I understand your point). I think that sentence should be cut since it isn't directly supported by RS. It's an overly ambitious summation of the state of affairs. There is some indication that EMDR is somewhat effective for some things, and on the other hand, the critics have multiple reasons for calling it pseudoscience, not just that one.DolyaIskrina (talk) 19:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Xsivfun1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Controversial

My attempt to reflect this statement present in the Criticism section "EMDR has historically been controversial within the psychological community" in the lead keeps getting reverted by one editor as being POV. I don't see how this change is controversial, as it is already in the article, and the lead needs to summarize the article. Rp2006 (talk) 18:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Read WP:WTW. I have linked to it several times already. It specifically highlights "controversial" as a word to watch. It is basic common sense: "X is a controversial Y" tells the reader absolutely nothing. It is vague and subjective. It neither summarises nor conveys anything encyclopaedic. You have to explain whatever controversy there is. The final sentence of the lead section very clearly does that.

Even if you had some very good reason to go against the very clear and common sense guidelines, you would want to write something grammatically correct. What you keep adding is not grammatically correct. Nevgerid (talk) 23:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with my grammar. And you are misconstruing the guidelines IMHO. Rp2006 (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Dunno, guy. Just looked up some of your edits and your grammar is kinda not great. Also, EMDR is pseudoscience, sorry. 68.3.76.17 (talk) 05:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

EMDR is not psuedoscience anymore than any psycholocical treatment or concept is. Your opinion is not backed by any credible evidence. EMDR is.

"Thirty RCTs have documented the positive effects of the bilateral stimulation used in the EMDR therapy (Lee and Cuijpers, 2013) and a meta-analysis (Swift and Greenberg, 2014) reported a high treatment retention rate. International professional organizations, including the American Psychiatric Association (American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2004); Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense (2004, 2017); Institut national de la santé et de la recherche médicale (INSERM Collective Expertise Centre, 2000/2004); World Health Organization (World Health Organization [WHO], 2013) designate EMDR therapy as an effective trauma treatment. Yet, in spite of broad recognition of the effectiveness of EMDR therapy, it has been the subject of few veteran-focused research studies. In fact, excluding component analyses (e.g., Boudewyns and Hyer, 1996) and studies utilizing only two sessions (e.g., Jensen, 1994; Devilly et al., 1998), the only RCT evaluating EMDR therapy in the treatment of American veterans with PTSD was conducted in 1998 (Carlson et al., 1998). The treatment resulted in a 76% elimination of PTSD in 12 sessions, with a zero dropout rate. Comparable results have been reported from a variety of case series (Lipke and Botkin, 1992; Silver et al., 1995, 2008; Young, 1995; Howard and Cox, 2006; Wesson and Gould, 2009; Wright and Russell, 2012). In addition, EMDR has proven successful in the treatment of co-occurring phantom limb pain in military personnel (e.g., Russell, 2008)."

reference

Hurley, E. C. (2018). Effective Treatment of Veterans With PTSD: Comparison Between Intensive Daily and Weekly EMDR Approaches. FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01458 2600:1702:4420:6430:E942:F4A:7F94:58E9 (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I have had the same problem. There is an editor who continues to revert that statement to his opinion despite a mountain of cited evidence to the contrary. EMDR is considered evidence-based treatment for PTSD, psychological trauma, childhood trauma, and anxiety disorders by the APA and WHO which *IS* the psychological community .Hopefully as we keep posting evidence, the other editors will stop this person from putting his outdated opinion as fact. No one in the accredited psychological community thinks EMDR is pseudoscience. It is being used in psychiatric hospitals around the world. 2600:1702:4420:6430:E942:F4A:7F94:58E9 (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)