Jump to content

Talk:Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Laboz125 (talk | contribs) at 20:59, 6 February 2020 (→Skewed interpretation on review regarding the role of eye movements in EMDR: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 (article contribs).

Looking over some of the new refs

I'm concerned that the recent edits substantially change the pov. It does look like there are two new references that meet MEDRS criteria: --Ronz (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bisson J, Roberts NP, Andrew M, Cooper R, Lewis C (2013). "Psychological therapies for chronic post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in adults". Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 12: CD003388. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003388.pub4. PMID 24338345.
    page 6: "There is no agreed mechanism by which EMDR is thought to operate. Shapiro 1989b discovered EMDR accidentally. Her account implicates personal experience of rapid eye movements easing distress" --Ronz (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This reminds me that we might want to reword the History section to refrain from using Wikipedia's voice to present Shapiro's accounts. --Ronz (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lee CW, Cuijpers P (2013). "A meta-analysis of the contribution of eye movements in processing emotional memories". Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry. 44 (2): 231–239. doi:10.1016/j.jbtep.2012.11.001. PMID 23266601.
    I'm not finding an online copy. --Ronz (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I made the changes in response to the reversion of an advocate editor's changes. The reversion seemed to pander to EDMR and miquoted refs. The refs your refer to above not new, they were already in the efficacy section (hidden there, I would argue). I merely lifted them up. Cochrane collaboration reviews should always be given prominence over primary sources. Famousdog (c) 09:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, blimey. No, I didn't make those changes. Caught up now! Famousdog (c) 09:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Care is also needed with regard to chronology. An old paper, even a review, should not be used to contradict a recent one. Some of these are pushing 20 years old. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moreno-Alcázar(2017) ref

  • Moreno-Alcázar, A.; Treen, D.; Valiente-Gómez, A.; Sio-Eroles, A.; Pérez, V.; Amann, B.L.; Radua, J. (2017). "Efficacy of Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing in Children and Adolescent with Post-traumatic Stress Disorder: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials". Frontiers in Psychology. 8: 1750. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01750. PMID 29066991.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

While I'm not sure it should be removed completely, the presentation is such that it somehow counters all criticisms.

@Jytdog: removed it with the concern that "frontiers is too weak a journal to use as MEDRS" [1]

I see that @Psychsci79: contacted Jytdog about this, without reply so far. --Ronz (talk) 23:10, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With due respect to @Jytdog:, Frontiers in Psychology is no more or less "weak" than many other academic journals. I don't think that alone is sufficient reason to remove this source. Famousdog (c) 09:05, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Society and Culture

Why do we have a section called "Society and Culture"? Shouldn't it be called "Effectiveness"? I'm mildly suspicious that someone named it that way in order to obscure the claims that EMDR is ineffective. Sonicsuns (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, and have edited the heading. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No and for two reasons. The first is WP:MEDMOS; the second is that the section is for stuff that is not purely health/medical like training and usage. Will fix. Jytdog (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sonicsuns, Epipelagic, and Jytdog: I agree that the section should be renamed, but am not sure what to call it. Ideas? Daask (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is about controversy in the field. This is a culture thing. There could be a subheader "controversy" i suppose. Jytdog (talk) 23:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've blended it with the history section. i think it fits best there Jytdog (talk) 07:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Animal studies

In the article on EMDR an important aspect is missing i.e. animal studies. If the reason that EMDR is due to the fact that endogenous EMDR is in fact happening during REM sleep,to deactivate traumas experiences, then it might be expected that animals which experience REM sleep could also be treated for trauma using EMDR techniques. One such recent study is Neural circuits underlying a psychotherapeutic regimen for fear disorders,[1], where the abstract states that "alternating bilateral sensory stimulation(ABS).(led to).. increases in the activities of the SC and mediodorsal thalamus (MD). Optogenetic manipulation revealed that the SC-MD circuit was necessary and sufficient to prevent the return of fear.ABS suppressed the activity of fear-encoding cells and stabilized inhibitory neurotransmission in the basolateral amygdala through a feedforward inhibitory circuit from the MD. Together, these results reveal the neural circuit that underlies an effective strategy for sustainably attenuating traumatic memories." Goughsp1 (talk) 10:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Skewed interpretation on review regarding the role of eye movements in EMDR

Quote from the article: "Another systematic review examined 15 clinical trials of EMDR with and without the eye movements, finding that the effect size was larger when eye movements were used. Again, interpretation of this meta-analysis was tentative. Lee and Cuijpers (2013) stated that "the quality of included studies was not optimal. This may have distorted the outcomes of the studies and our meta-analysis. Apart from ensuring adequate checks on treatment quality, there were other serious methodological problems with the studies in the therapy context."


The review done by Lee and Cuipers 2013 did point out some methodological issues of the included studies, however in the conclusion section it said "Despite these limitations, it seems safe to conclude that the eye movements do have an additional value in EMDR treatments." To describe the results as tentative are in disagreement with the conclusion of the review. I suggest that the quoted conclusion above should be used instead .

The review also criticized the meta-analysis by Davidson and Parker (2005) that is cited in this article. However this criticism is not,for some reason, included in this article. According to the WP:MEDRS, the Lee and Cuipers (2013) review should be regarded as the most reliable source since it is the most recent one. I agree that it not entirely safe to say that eye movements add value to the EMDR treatments, however the narrative in the article is in my opinion to skeptic regarding the role of eye movements in EMDR. Laboz125 (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Neural circuits underlying a psychotherapeutic regimen for fear disorders..
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eye_movement_desensitization_and_reprocessing&oldid=939497487"