Talk:Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing/Comments

Just going over some of the references that purportedly support EMDR as an efficacious therapy, even a superior therapy to cog. behavioral thereapy, desensitization therapy, and pharmacotherapy. Every article I bring up seems to say the opposite. I'm a little confused. Is this an advertisement page for EMDR? The science is not very good. Here for example, is what reference 12 says about the therapy: "No controlled studies of psychodynamic psychotherapy, eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR), or hypnosis have been conducted that would establish data-based evidence of their efficacy as an early or preventive intervention for ASD or PTSD." This reference was from the American Psychiatric Association guidelines on PTSD, and was cited in a statement by the author that EMDR was SUPERIOR to other treatments. Am I missing something here? Sandy Marssociety 23:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a treatment that is strongly recommended for use in the treatment of trauma by some of the major researchers in the field, such as Van der Kolk and Briere (See, for example, Principles of Trauma Treatment, edited by Biere & Scott, 2006 or the White Paper on Complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder by the National Trauma Center. DPeterson^talk 00:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is some misunderstanding here. There is a difference between (1) treating people who have been diagnosed with PTSD to reduce/eliminate their symptoms and (2) treating people who have been exposed to trauma to prevent them from developing PTSD. It is true that EMDR has not been tested to see if it will stop the development of PTSD in people who are exposed to trauma. However, there are more than 16 randomized clinical trials that have investigated EMDR’s effectiveness in the treatment of PTSD. Almost all found that EMDR is very effective in reducing/eliminating symptoms of PTSD for people already diagnosed with that disorder. Lmaxfield (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the usefulness of the eye movements are apparently not seperated from the other parts of the therapy. EMDR may well be effective but not because of the eye movements, but due to EMDR being a desensitization therapy. Both the perspective that eye movements are (1) needed, and, (2) not needed, for the therapy to be effective must be present in the article for a balanced presentation per WP:NPOV policy. Fremte (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing two different constructs -- mechanisms of action and efficacy. We don't even know the mechanisms of action in CBT therapies, or in imaginal exposure. Research has yet to specify why and how any psychotherapy works. With EMDR, all the research studies that found elimination of PTSD diagnosis used eye movements. You cannot say that EMDR-without-eye-movements would achieve the same result because this is not known. The research has not been done. You cannot make statements that are not supported by research. You can say that the use of eye movements is controversial, but not that EMDR would achieve the same effects without them. Neither can you say that the mechanism of action is desensitization. That is a theoretical statement, not a proven statement. Lmaxfield (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a concern here which is being peripherally addressed: If one cannot really prove the efficacy of any mechanism of psychotherapy, what sense is there in putting forth theories and opinions in that regard, especially if any criticism of such theories simply leads back to an assertion that such criticisms are unfounded? I grow increasingly weary of the (still) physics-envy-saturation of our field. I would like to see more rational and realistic approaches to addressing the practical effects of our considerations, rather than considerations on the practical effects of our treatments. Do you follow? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.1.180 (talk) 09:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]