Eye movement desensitisation: Past research, complexities, and future directions

A systematic research synthesis of EMDR studies: implementation of the platinum standard

Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) is a psychological treatment method used primarily for people who have experienced trauma. This article provides a systematic research synthesis of EMDR studies targeting trauma symptomatology published between 1997 and 2003. This synthesis builds on the Revised Gold Standard (RGS) as a guide to evaluate empirical EMDR studies. Modifications and additions to the RGS criteria are proposed. The resulting standard is referred to as the Platinum Standard (PS). Sixteen EMDR studies are reviewed and critiqued using the PS criteria. None of the studies reviewed met full PS criteria. The mean score for the studies on the PS was 8.28, with 9 of the studies exceeding the mean. The review calls for researchers to employ more rigorous research designs for EMDR effectiveness using PS criteria. Implications for practice, policy, and research are discussed.

Treatment of PTSD: stress inoculation training with prolonged exposure compared to EMDR

The effectiveness of Stress Inoculation Training with Prolonged Exposure (SITPE) was compared to Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR). Twenty-four participants who had a diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) were randomly assigned to one of the treatment conditions. Participants were also their own wait-list control. Outcome measures included self-report and observer-rated measures of PTSD, and self-report measures of depression. On global PTSD measures, there were no significant differences between the treatments at the end of therapy. However on the subscale measures of the degree of intrusion symptoms, EMDR did significantly better than SITPE. At follow-up EMDR was found to lead to greater gains on all measures.

The power of suggestion: comment on EMDR and mesmerism: a comparative historical analysis

This response to McNally challenges the notion that scientific controversy should be waged with smear tactics. McNally's anti-EMDR conclusions are contested as premature and based on red herrings, selective neglect of the literature, and erroneous application of scientific principles. The importance of treatment fidelity is highlighted as a way of distinguishing between EMDR studies of widely varying quality.