Our results suggest that in the treatment of PTSD, both therapy methods tend to be equally efficacious. We suggest that future research should not restrict its focus to the efficacy, effectiveness and efficiency of these therapy methods but should also attempt to establish which trauma patients are more likely to benefit from one method or the other. What remains unclear is the contribution of the eye movement component in EMDR to treatment outcome.
In the literature, peritraumatic dissociation is frequently considered to be a risk factor for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). In the last few years, a large number of studies have investigated the connections between PTSD and peritraumatic dissociation. A meta-analysis was conducted, including 35 empirical studies that discuss the connections between peritraumatic dissociation and PTSD. Meta-analysis makes it possible to undertake a systematic integration of findings produced by primary studies of this kind to date. The average effect size was r=0.36, indicating a significant positive correlation between the two dimensions. In this article, the authors make a distinction between correlate and risk factor. Therefore, subgroup analyses of quasi-prospective and retrospective studies were undertaken with a view to establishing whether peritraumatic dissociation represents a risk factor for the development of PTSD following a traumatic event. The average effect size in the quasi-prospective studies was r=0.34, which was significant. From a methodological viewpoint, the results show that peritraumatic dissociation is a moderate risk factor for PTSD. Nonetheless, the conceptualization of peritraumatic dissociation in the framework of psychotraumatic stress syndromes--is it a predictor, a symptom, or something else entirely?--needs to be addressed by future research.
Although the results of our study suggest that EMDR may be a safe and promising treatment option in chronic pain conditions, the small number of high-quality studies leads to insufficient evidence for definite treatment recommendations.
ObjectiveEye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR)—an evidence-based approach to eliminate emotional distress from traumatic experiences—was recently suggested for the treatment of chronic pain. The aim of this study was to estimate preliminary efficacy of a pain-focused EMDR intervention for the treatment of non-specific chronic back pain (CBP).DesignRandomized controlled pilot study.Methods40 non-specific CBP (nsCBP) patients reporting previous experiences of psychological trauma were consecutively recruited from outpatient tertiary care pain centers. After baseline assessment, patients were randomized to intervention or control group (1:1). The intervention group received 10 sessions standardized pain-focused EMDR in addition to treatment-as-usual (TAU). The control group received TAU alone. The primary outcome was preliminary efficacy, measured by pain intensity, disability, and treatment satisfaction from the patients’ perspective. Clinical relevance of changes was determined according to the established recommendations. Assessments were conducted at the baseline, posttreatment, and at a 6-month follow-up. Intention-to-treat analysis with last observation carried forward method was used. Registered with (NCT01850875).ResultsEstimated effect sizes (between-group, pooled SD) for pain intensity and disability were d = 0.79 (CI95%: 0.13, 1.42) and d = 0.39 (CI95%: −0.24, 1.01) posttreatment, and d = 0.50 (CI95%: 0.14, 1.12) and d = 0.14 (CI95%: −0.48, 0.76) at 6-month follow-up. Evaluation on individual patient basis showed that about 50% of the patients in the intervention group improved clinically relevant and also rated their situation as clinically satisfactory improved, compared to 0 patients in the control group.ConclusionThere is preliminary evidence that pain-focused EMDR might be useful for nsCBP patients with previous experiences of psychological trauma, with benefits for pain intensity maintained over 6 months.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.