Talk:Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Proposed addition to the " Other applications" section.

Hey everyone, I'm new to Wikipedia and as an undergrad project for my Abnormal Psych course, my professor has assigned me to add some small piece of information with a citation to a Wiki page involving a treatment for a disorder. I would like to propose the addition of this sentence to the Other Applications section on this page:

EMDR is currently being researched as a possible treatment for other co-morbid disorders such as: attachment disorder, grief, night terrors,and substance abuse disorders.

References

I hope that I have met all requirements to post on this page, if I havent please let me know and ill be more then happy to make any adjustments. Also please point any and all of my mistakes as I said earlier I am new to this. Thank you. IntellectualThought (talk) 01:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I think a better source is needed so we don't violate WP:MEDRS, WP:DUE, and WP:FUTURE. While the reference does indeed verify most of what you're proposing, it does so as a brief, final paragraph identifying future directions for research. --Ronz (talk) 01:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The source provided is a peer-reviewed RS and verifies that this is the direction of the future, I am puzzled at what a "better" source would be. A brief, final paragraph is verification, what is missing? Montanabw^(talk) 20:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The relevant para in that source is the very last one, which says "EMDR is also in the early stages of being identified as a type of treatment for attachment disorders, grief, nightmares, other anxiety disorders, and substance disorders. Research to date is limited, but the results available indicate that comorbid disorders may also respond to EMDR. It is important to explore the potential of EMDR to provide clinicians with a treatment model that can traverse many symptom presentations in an efficient manner." -- PMC 4189702 There's a significant delta from "in the early stages of being identified" to "is currently being researched as a possible treatment". For a drug intervention, it would be the difference between in-vitro studies and phase III clinical studies. It's a long road that Ronz' proposed text glosses over. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. Just wondering if there is a way to put something accurate in there about directions for future research. The original poster sounds like someone with a school project, It's nice to help if we can. Montanabw^(talk) 07:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

We'd need a reliable source about directions for future research, which isn't a paper that doesn't discuss the topic at all except for a brief sentence at the very end. --Ronz (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

A peer-reviewed journal noting future directions is a perfectly reliable source acceptable for a general statement; I will agree that LeadSongDog is probably right that one cannot exceed what is said, but the reality is that this is the direction research is looking at. Incomplete not to note it. Seriously, Name what a better source would be? Montanabw^(talk) 04:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

No. Given that this is an encyclopedia and this is a MEDRS topic, I doubt any such sources exist that would meet our policies. (I hope I can assume that everyone here knows it is expected that any research paper will include at least a brief mention of possible areas of future research.) Hypothetically, someone might review the research on a topic looking specifically for promising areas of future research, then summarizing their findings. (I'd expect that such papers are written as part of the process of calling for research, but if I've ever seen such a thing I've forgotten about it.) However, we're not going to confuse a simple statement of possible future directions as a statement about what areas are actually promising as a whole. Granted, statements coming from a review are better than from primary research. Still, if editors can find GA MEDRS articles that include such information, it would be worth discussing them and examining what types of references they use. --Ronz (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree to the extent that you are assuming that there is a need to go beyond the source. There isn't; the proposed wording above may be overbroad, but a narrower version would be fine, I think.. If a source that otherwise passes MEDRS for other purposes in this article states the direction for future research, then it is also a RS for a statement here as to the recommended direction of future research. Nothing more. Montanabw^(talk) 04:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

While such papers (and even specialist journals on Directions in xxxx) do exist, the papers are almost always primary sources. In any case, there is wp:NODEADLINE for Wikipedia articles. When and if the work gets done, published, and covered in reviews it will be incorporated quite soon enough. 131.137.245.207 (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

"If a source that otherwise passes MEDRS for other purposes..." I'm saying that this simply is not the case. They are reliable for the research that has been done, that's all. --Ronz (talk) 16:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, what IS a reliable source for stating directions for future research? If not a peer-reviewed journal's recommendations, then what? You won't take a news journal either, it seems, (though WP:PRIMARY is not a prohibition). Seriously, I am puzzled that "future directions" seems to be verboten here. Montanabw^(talk) 07:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Fundamental MEDRS, DUE, and FUTURE violations are rather verboten that is. I already discussed this and offered an approach to resolve the dispute: Find a GA MEDRS article that has something similar and discuss it. --Ronz (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Ronz, you are repeating yourself. It is my view that if an article that otherwise passes MEDRS also says "future directions for research are - or should be - X" that seems to me to be perfectly acceptable for a statement in this article. Likewise a "new directions in X" news article in a peer-reviewed journal also passes muster. Yet you keep saying nononononono... so I'm asking you: Show me an example (another article, perhaps) of a "future directions in research" comment that meets your standard, because I think you are simply being pigheaded here. Montanabw^(talk) 06:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I repeated the concerns that aren't being addressed. Responses based upon insults are not the way to advance the dispute. --Ronz (talk) 19:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Tense

Statements in the current tense should be based on current sources per wp:MEDDATE. This normally means less than five years old. Certainly 1999 and 2000 sources should be clearly in the past tense. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@LeadSongDog: Nearly all the citations in the article are from before 2010, but you chose to add qualifiers only to statements critical of the therapy. This is obviously POV editing. Please revert your changes. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

IP you're editing very boldly for someone who admits to having little knowledge of the topic. The fact is criticisms of the therapy have reduced markedly over the last 15 years as the evidence for it's effectiveness has increased. You have stated this yourself after reading up on the topic 'As a response to this criticism, increasingly rigorous research was done which established the effectiveness of the therapy.' Not having qualifiers is actually POV editing, as it is implying that the criticisms and consensus on EMDR from 1999/2000 applies to 2015. But even those papers misrepresent how EMDR was viewed at that time. You're original edit summarized the consensus on EMDR today as

'EMDR is a controversial therapy within the psychological community, and its efficacy compared to other treatments and underlying mechanism continue to be the subject of debate.'

That is just not how EMDR is viewed by psychologists generally in 2015. It's efficacy is now firmly established.

Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 00:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

ip, I suggest you read the recent review sources before casting aspersions on your fellow editors. LeadSongDog come howl! 01:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote above. Nearly all the citations in the article are from before 2010, but you chose to add qualifiers only to statements critical of the therapy. This is obviously POV editing. I stand by that statement. 73.223.96.73 (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

BTW I am the same as 67.188.230.128, my dynamic IP seems to have changed recently. 73.223.96.73 (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The appropriate response to such perceived POV would be to provide current MEDRS sources asserting that a controversy continues, if they exist. I don't see any. LeadSongDog come howl! 02:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

IP, I did a rough count, 21 of the 60 or so so citations are from 2010 or later, so your statement 'nearly all the citations are from before 2010' is just not correct. Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 04:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Addition to "Children" subheading

Hello! As an assignment for an Abnormal Psychology course, our professor challenged us to constructively edit a Wikipedia page that dealt with any aspect of abnormal psychology. I propose the addition below as the last sentence under the sub heading "children." If you feel I should make any changes or did something incorrectly please do not hesitate to let me know, since I am very new to this process. I am adding this information because it seemed like this specific section was missing information regarding efficiency of treatment. Moreover, I though that a 2014 peer-reviewed journal article would help make that section more current and add valuable information. What I would like to add and the reference are stated below:

As recent as 2014, a randomized controlled trial found that trauma focused cognitive behavioral therapy (TF-CBT) and EMDR were both effective means of treating childhood trauma, although parent reports demonstrated that TF-CBT was better able to treat the depression and hyperactivity commonly associated with children who suffer traumas.

Thank you in advance for all of your feedback!--Mdelaosa (talk) 13:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

That's a primary source and does not comply with WP:MEDRS. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Addition to "Controversy Over Mechanisms & Effectiveness"

I would like to add this piece "Many studies, like the ones listed below, have shown that this therapy is more effective at treating anxiety then doing nothing at all. However, it is unclear which characteristics of EMDR are actually contributing to alleviating symptoms." to the section concerning Controversy Over Mechanisms & Effectiveness. Currently the article states the findings of experiments that have shown the effectiveness between eye movement and no eye movement. But it does not state that overall EMDR is more effective than receiving no therapy. This is important because it supports the claims made in this section that some aspect of this therapy's procedures work, but it is unclear which those are.70.163.64.27 (talk) 04:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

While that's an interesting article, it does not comply with WP:MEDRS. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

It depends on what statements the source would be used to support. WP:MEDPOP indicates that "The high-quality popular press can be a good source for social, biographical, current-affairs, financial, and historical information in a medical article." 73.223.96.73 (talk) 06:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Once again, that's an old source, from 2007. Do you have anything current to cite, or not? LeadSongDog come howl! 22:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

My edits

I changed the structure of the article to be readable to an uninvolved person like me. When I started reading it, I could not tell heads from tails. You tag it as an "advert", but it was the sloppiest advert I've ever seen :-). I did not change a single phrase, just moved things around, for readability. I also moved list of arganization from intro, per wikipedia guidelines: an intro is a summary, for God's sake. In tomorrow more orgs endorse it, so what? shall we put all 200 of them into intro? Staszek Lem (talk) 23:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

For your convenience, here are my edit summaries:

• (cur | prev) 15:28, 14 May 2015‎ Staszek Lem (talk | contribs)‎ . . (28,184 bytes) (-2)‎ . . (Move description section higher) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 15:25, 14 May 2015‎ Staszek Lem (talk | contribs)‎ . . (28,186 bytes) (+163)‎ . . (List of endorsing orgs moved from into into a separate section, leaving only brief summary, as supposed to be in intro) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 15:20, 14 May 2015‎ Staszek Lem (talk | contribs)‎ . . (28,023 bytes) (-2)‎ . . (→‎Controversy) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 15:19, 14 May 2015‎ Staszek Lem (talk | contribs)‎ . . (28,025 bytes) (+1)‎ . . (moved "History" to top; it gives a quick idea WTH is this.) (undo)

Staszek Lem (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

It's no big deal, I just thought for an article currently in dispute, changes (even in shifting text) should be discussed first. I thought the recommended cycle was edit, revert then discuss not edit,revert, revert the reversion and then discuss. Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 00:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Quite a few articles are in dispute all the time. This does not mean that they are frozen from normal editing. You are referring to WP:BRD. Be careful with its usage and don't apply it when you don't have real objections to discuss. Mechanical application of BRD is a gateway to severe impeding of work: a malicious person can run around clicking "revert" at a whim (so do "page owners"). My edit summaries are pretty clear. The only thing you expressed a slight objection I self-reverted. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I did also mention that rearranging changes emphasis, specifically you've rearranged an important paragraph in the lead that is the subject of a current rfc. I think that should have been discussed first. If it wasn't for that I wouldn't have bothered reverting. In retrospect I should have just reverted that paragraph and the detagging. Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 02:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

We typically lay out articles per WP:MEDMOS thus moved history section lower. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

In this case please add concise description of the essence of the therapy at the top, per inverted triangle rule of reporting. This is encyclopedia for everybody, not just for doctors, who already know it all. I don't want to waste my time to read thru Phase I, Phase II, etc. which say nothing useful. How I can understand "Medical uses" section if I don't know yet what the hell is used medically? If the layout of this article follows MEDMOS, then IMO MEDMOS has issues in this respect. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

P.S. This is about all what I can say about the article. What I did was simply out of my habit to edit what I read. I don't think I will edit anything else here, since I am not qualified as to the essence. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Advert tag

Please explain the advert tag. The tag is a politely written text, but it is intended to be slapped onto blatant advertising. Currently the article does not contain hype language, nor undue promotion of nonnotable businesses. If you think that an opposing view is not sufficiently presented, you must use some of WP:NPOV tags. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The article is generally well written and it seems EMDR has become an established intervention. I don't see any sections written as an advertisement. I removed the tag until someone can be more specific about to what ~sentences the advertisment claim refers. PizzaMan (♨♨) 09:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Paragraph in lead describing past and current views on EMDR

There has been some discussion over how to describe the current status of EMDR in the lead paragraph. Currently, the lead contains a paragraph describing endorsements by several organizations, and then mentioning that the issue has been controversial in the past. This paragraph misrepresents the situation by (a) presenting an appearance of overwhelming support and endorsement for the therapy, when in fact the support is more measured and moderate, and (b) minimizing the past controversy over the treatment's efficacy and the ongoing debate over its mechanisms. This RfC is for the purpose of crafting a more accurate paragraph, free from advocacy and bias. 73.223.96.73 (talk) 06:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Some of these issues have been previously discussed above. 73.223.96.73 (talk) 06:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• The article is full of endorsements of the treatment, and description of how it is applied professionally. But there is nothing on why or how it might work. And if the treatment as described does work, why the need for a professional therapist? Thinking about a painful memory while flicking one's eyes from side to side is something anyone could do at home. Maproom (talk) 06:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

There is obviously a bias in the article, EMDR is quite controversial in the scientific community. However this is not a properly formatted RfC. In fact, it's not an RfC at all, just a comment with the RfC tag slapped onto it. I've had it with being summoned to crap like this. I'm unsubscribing from RfC requests until a procedure is in place where not anyone can and will open an RfC for anything. PizzaMan (♨♨) 07:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC) Edit: note that the article and it's references does make a case for EMDR becoming more accepted. Note that i studied psychology and heard about emdr back when emdr was laughed at and i didn't update my knowledge in the mean time. As perhaps some other editors here? PizzaMan (♨♨) 18:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comments and disclaimer: I am no trick cyclist, so, as someone incompetent in the field I am here only in response to the RFC (Though I sympathise with PizzaMan's annoyance, but if we are too sniffy about proper formatting of RFCs then it will be difficult for many editors to express justifiable concerns.) It all sounds very handwavy and placebic to me, but that is nothing I can do much about. Instead the best I can do at present is to suggest a bit of minor rewording. How about this for a start? If you find it a helpful basis to work from, feel welcome, if not, sorry, try someone who knows more about the field, or you can have a more organised go at formulating the RFC.

Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) is a psychotherapy developed by Francine Shapiro[]. It emphasizes disturbing memories as the cause of psychopathology.[1][2] Some practitioners consider EMDR helpful in dealing with the symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).[3] According to Shapiro, when a traumatic or distressing experience occurs, it may overwhelm normal coping mechanisms, and the memory and associated stimuli are inadequately processed and stored in an isolated memory network.[1]

Supporters of EMDR argue that it assists in processing the distressing memories and allowing the person to develop more adaptive coping mechanisms. It involves having the person recall distressing images while receiving one of several types of bilateral sensory input, including side to side eye movements.[4] EMDR was originally developed to treat adults with PTSD; however, it also has been used in treatment of children and dealing with problem conditions other than PTSD.[5]

Since 2004 the Practice Guidelines of the American Psychiatric Association,[6] the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Defense,[7] SAMHSA,[8] the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies,[9] and the World Health Organization[10] have included EMDR. In 1999 [11] EMDR is a controversial therapy within the psychological community and its efficacy and underlying mechanism still are under debate.[12]

JonRichfield (talk) 04:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@Pizzaman and JonRichfield: Would you mind indicating what can be done to make this RfC more effective? I previously tried adding an "expert needed" tag to the article but it proved ineffective. This seemed to be the logical next step to request assistance. 73.223.96.73 (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

IP are the organisations mentioned and cited in the article that consider EMDR to be an effective treatment for PTSD just not expert enough for you?

EMDR has been recommended since 2004 as an effective treatment for trauma in the Practice Guidelines of the American Psychiatric Association,[6] the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Defense,[7] SAMHSA,[8] the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies,[9] and the World Health Organization.[10]

How about those organisations not included in the article, to name just a few, Canadian Psychological Association, British Psychological Society and the Australian Psychological Society that all endorse EMDR for PTSD?. As far as I'm aware virtually all the professional psychological associations/boards in western countries consider EMDR to be a validated treatment for PTSD. As does the Cochrane Collaboration. Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 22:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

My objection is not to the individual sources but to the way the sources are presented and the overall balance of the article. 73.223.96.73 (talk) 01:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

OK you interpret the listing of the organisations that recommend EMDR as a treatment for PTSD as 'presenting an appearance of overwhelming support and endorsement for the therapy, when in fact the support is more measured and moderate'. I don't interpret it that way. All those organisations listed in the article actually recommend the treatment in a 'measured and moderate manner', they have generally speaking compared EMDR to no treatment at all, and to other treatments (especially trauma focused CBT), and have concluded that EMDR is better than no treatment at all and is generally as effective as trauma focused CBT for PTSD. There's nothing overwhelming about the support for it, there is no magic treatment for PTSD, that approach is reflected in the WHO document. What is overwhelming is that so many organisations and professional boards consider it an effective PTSD treatment.

I agree the article has enthusiastic language in several parts and that should be rewritten. But it is biased in the sense that for a currently validated and accepted treatment, more space is dedicated to the controversies rather than to the evidence that has established it's effectiveness for PTSD. That emphasis is really not minimizing the controversies. But I do agree that exactly how it works is still in debate. Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 05:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

What would improve this RfC would be 1. Boldly make the edits you propose. If someone disagrees with your edits, engage in a dialogue. Try extensively to come to a consensus. 2. If you can't reach consensus, try to clearly define and agree what you disagree on. 3. In the RfC, present two clear options that other editors can vote on by using the agree/disagree tags. Or more options if absolutely necessary. 4. Making a WP account would make a difference for me personally. PizzaMan (♨♨) 07:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Like 73.223.96.73 I am less comfortable with the article than Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd seems to be. I think the tone is a bit POV and am doubtful about the flat claim that the treatment is currently validated and accepted; it seems to me still somewhat controversial, which suggests that demands for more NPOV writing could well be justified. However, the approach also does not seem to be support of clearly unreasonable quackery, and it would not be reasonable to demand that every observation on every topic must share the empirical verifiability of say, elementary mechanics, or we would be extremely unhelpful to nearly all our users, because there is hardly any topic that is totally free of niggle room. I reckon that the best we could do if we cannot immediately word it to suit all parties, would be to flag the article and let it stand while we hold our collective breath awaiting developments in the field. JonRichfield (talk) 09:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on citations to reliable sources. For medical assertions wp:MEDRS describes how to find these. Unless there are such current MEDRS sources to indicate an ongoing controversy (in opposition of Cochrane systematic reviews and other high quality sources), then we have nothing to work with. If someone has found such sources, by all means identify them. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

EMDR is extremely embellished in this article. I am the one who read ::the entire 240-page:: meta-analysis done by the Cochran Collaboration (CC) (Bisson, 2014 - see references on article page), which is one of the most respected independent research groups in the international medical community. In that study, 70 studies were analyzed, comprising a little less than 5,000 participants. Though numerous interventions for PTSD were reviewed, EMDR was heavily analyzed. The CC determined that the evidence quality was very low and that caution should be exercised when interpreting the results. This review done by the CC is important because in the World Health Organization's Guidelines for Treating Stress, which can be found here, it is cited when the guidelines state that there is no "consensus regarding its efficacy." Another meta-analysis I read and cited on the article page (see Lee & Cuipers, 2013) tried to determine if the bilateral stimulation (following the light back and forth with your eyes) had an additive value to the CBT therapy that envelopes it. The meta-analysts stated that they were only able to select 10 studies for analysis because the rest were of such poor quality. However, in the discussion section of that review, the authors admit that the 10 chosen were "less than optimal quality" and "underpowered" their analysis. Translation: the studies were unable to prove anything empirically, at least according to the strictest research standards of the day. Though I am not a medical doctor, I am a licensed clinical mental health counselor practicing and publishing in the field. It is my humble opinion that this entire article needs to be re-worked to bring it closer in line with encyclopedic-style reading and objectivity. The embellishment needs to be removed, and the focus needs to drive more towards what the literature is saying: using it in practice is indeed supported, but its efficacy has not yet been established conclusively; therefore it remains controversial for the time being. Lastly, bear in mind that many organizations who endorse EMDR are in no way involved with determining its efficacy. Researchers determine if a treatment is efficacious, the Veterans Associations, and other similar organizations, do not. They merely review research and try to gage as best they can from it if they will reimburse professionals using. In other words, endorsements from non-research organizations do not equate to proof of treatment effectiveness. It's just how the mental health field is set up right now. I didn't make the rules, I just work here. Urstadt (talk) 00:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Rewrite of controversy section

I'm attempting to rewrite the controversy section from a chronological perspective so that it doesn't misrepresent/ignore past criticisms.

This July 2014 version included a new and recent criticism, and the section partially reorganized soon after.

Recently, the section was largely rewritten to repeatedly compare old criticisms with the very latest research. I think a chronological approach could solve the concerns of those edits while not censoring notable viewpoints that may or may not be now out of date. It would probably be best to get help at WP:FTN to see how to address the once fringe theories that are becoming more and more mainstream.

There are notable criticisms since that should be incorporated as well. --Ronz (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Quickly searching for possible references to add: --Ronz (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/emdr.html - updated April 2011. --Ronz (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/emdr-taking-a-closer-look/ - Dec 6, 2007 --Ronz (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• http://www.skepdic.com/emdr.html - Looks like minor updates over the past decade. --Ronz (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• Rosen, Gerald M; Mcnally, Richard J; Lilienfeld, Scott O (1999). "Eye Movement Magic: Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing". Skeptic. 7 (4). - discussed in prev section. --Ronz (talk) 19:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

FTN discussion started here. --Ronz (talk) 20:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Unless someone gets to it sooner, I'll make a list of the removed references. --Ronz (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

There's a great deal of information including criticism, research, and theories about the eye movements, enough to justify at least one subsection depending on how it is all organized. --Ronz (talk) 18:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

And some of the material removed for juxtaposing historical information with new provides this info with sources. It should be restored chronologically or in another proper context. --Ronz (talk) 17:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Quickly listing the removed references without checking if they are in the article elsewhere in the article: --Ronz (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• Devilly, G.J., & Spencer, S. (1999). The relative efficacy and treatment distress of EMDR and a cognitive behavioral trauma treatment protocol in the amelioration of post-traumatic stress disorder. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 13, 131-157.DOI: 10.1016/S0887-6185(98)00044-9
• Taylor, S., Thordarson, D. S., Maxfield, L., Fedoroff, I. C., Lovell, K., & Ogrodniczuk, J. (2003). Comparative efficacy, speed, and adverse effects of three PTSD treatments: exposure therapy, EMDR, and relaxation training. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(2), 330 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.71.2.330.
• Bisson, J., Roberts, N.P., Andrew, M., Cooper, R. & Lewis, C. (2013). Psychological therapies for chronic post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003388.pub4
• Watts, B.V. et al. (2013). Meta-analysis of the efficacy of treatments for posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 74, e541-550. doi: 10.4088/JCP.12r08225
• Gunter, R. W., & Bodner, G. E. (2008). How eye movements affect unpleasant memories: Support for a working-memory account. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 46, 913-931 DOI: 10.1016/j.brat.2008.04.006
• van den Hout, M. A., Rijkeboer, M. M., Engelhard, I. M., Klugkist, I., Hornsveld, H., Toffolo, M. J., & Cath, D. C. (2012). Tones inferior to eye movements in the EMDR treatment of PTSD. Behaviour research and therapy, 50(5), 275-279.DOI: 10.1016/j.brat.2012.02.001
• van den Hout, Marcel A., and Iris M. Engelhard. "How does EMDR work?." Journal of Experimental Psychopathology 3.5 (2012): 724-738.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5127/jep.028212
• Lee, C. W., & 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
• World Health Organization (2013). Guidelines for the management of conditions that are specifically related to stress. Geneva, WHO. http://www.who.int/mental_health/emergence
• Van Etten, M. L.; Taylor, S. (1998). "Comparative efficacy of treatments for post-traumatic stress disorder: a meta-analysis". Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy 5 (3): 126–144. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0879(199809)5:3<126::AID-CPP153>3.0.CO;2-H
• Bradley, R., Greene, J., Russ, E., Dutra, L., & Westen, D. (2005). A multidimensional meta-analysis of psychotherapy for PTSD. American Journal of Psychiatry, 162(2), 214-227.doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.162.2.214
• Watts, B.V. et al. (2013). Meta-analysis of the efficacy of treatments for posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 74, e541-550. doi: 10.4088/JCP.12r08225

Again, chronological order appears to be the accepted solution to this. -Ronz (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Still no response? --Ronz (talk) 15:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@Ronz: Please do not remove the studies done by Bisson and associates (2014) and Lee & Cuipers (2013). I am the one who read those reviews and am personally responsible for adding them to this page. I am in total agreement of reworking the section in chronological order, by all means. Just please don't remove them outright. Also, I have hard copies of both articles and can upload them to Google Drive or Dropbox if you would like to peruse them. Thank you. Urstadt (talk) 00:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if I've missed something, but I think the list of references above is still inclusive of everything so far offered that is not currently in the article.

As far as moving forward: The criticisms sourced from Skeptic need to be placed in chronological order with enough context so they make sense. Proper inclusion of the expansion of research into the eye movements and its validation need to be added chronologically as well. Further, there are more recent criticisms that need to be added, with new references. --Ronz (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Ronz you have no consensus for these changes, accept that. Stop edit warring, you are currently reverting two editors. Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 23:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

And for the record I'm opposed to your proposed changes for the same reasons as discussed in the previous section Talk:Eye_movement_desensitization_and_reprocessing#Skeptic_magazine_.28skeptic.com.29_reliable.3F. You insist on using inferior sources and not peer reviewed psychology and psychiatry journals. Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 23:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Is the point is to cover the history of the controversy, or the state of the controversy? In the former case, a chronological sequence would make sense. In the latter, a rewrite to remove the antiquated sources (and the statements sourced to them) per wp:MEDDATE would be more useful. A middle road would be to have subsections for Controversy/History and Controversy/Current.

The present melange is chaotic, and clearly has a lot of wp:SYN problems, but there has to be an end goal in sight, not just slash and burn. Once there's agreement on where we are headed, I would suggest that any reorganization edits be purely reorganization, without addition or deletion. Then we can let the page stabilize for a few days prior to tagging obsolete sources for replacement. Substituting the replacement sources for the dated ones should be one edit per source to minimize confusion. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The conflict here is about the sources. I've got no problems with either a chronological or state approach. It is Ronz's stated intention to introduce skeptic sources such as http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/emdr.html , http://www.skepdic.com/emdr.html etc that is the problem. These are not peer reviewed. In the previous section on this talk page even when provided with a source from a peer reviewed journal that include exactly the same argument, Ronz still insists on using skeptic.com. I won't revert if the sources are adequate and are representative of the controversy as discussed in psychology journals. Skeptic websites and magazines are inferior sources to peer reviewed journals as per WP:MEDRS. Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 22:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Quackwatch is a rather special case that has been discussed ad nauseum at wp:RSN, but in general yes. That said, a section which is about the controversy rather than the science does need to reflect the places where that controversy plays out while remaining cautious about the credence given to lower quality sources. LeadSongDog come howl! 23:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The Quackwatch article on EMDR may not be peer-reviewed, but it is based on peer-review research and basic statistics. For example, the author explains that EMDR has yet to pass the "show me" test. While it is true that this statement was not peer-reviewed, per se, any basic, intermediate, and advanced research methods course in a reputable college is going to talk enough about the Show Me test to inform readers. In other words, their education on research methods is enough to tell them that they author is correct in his statement. As a Master's level licensed clinical mental health counselor working in the field and actively involved in research, I can tell you that the author of that article is spot with his review. Especially since other peer-review meta-analysis corroborate the author's claims. Urstadt (talk) 00:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll rewrite the section in chronological order, including all the sources above (as much as make sense while not violating our content policies). If editors continue to have problems with sources, please take them to WP:RSN. --Ronz (talk) 15:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The opening sentences, "EMDR has generated a great deal of controversy since its inception in 1989. Shapiro was criticised for repeatedly increasing the length and expense of training and certification, allegedly in response to the results of controlled trials that cast doubt on EMDR's efficacy" are a true part of the historical record, yet they lack balance and add a sense of bias if they stand without comment. Thus, I have added, "However, the two articles and statements such as these were rebutted in a review entitled “A critical evaluation of current views regarding eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR): Clarifying points of confusion.” In the section “Historical Misinformation, Slurs and Charges of Pseudoscience,” the authors refuted the claims point by point and decried that "scientific debate has begun to degenerate into slurs, innuendo, and ad hominem attacks”.Saturn Explorer (talk) 14:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

As I noted, the material needs more context, however, the addition will have to be rewritten or be removed as it is more of the same SYN/NPOV violating content that has plagued this article. --Ronz (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually I think the initial sentences violate POV as they are not refuted before my more recent addition--made to add balance. Also, the initial sentences come across as a slur against shapiro. Perkins and Rouanzoin very painstakingly demonstrate how the criticisms about charges for training (based on alleged ineffectiveness) were made on the basis of misrepresentations of then current research. In any event, it should be clear that the issue under discussion is of historic value only since the therapy has been well validated for PTSD during ensuing years as indicated in multiple meta-analyses and also as indicated by the therapy's acceptance by several official bodies, perhaps most notably the WHO.Saturn Explorer (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but you seem to be siding with your preferred sources and opinions and want the article to be written from that perspective only. This is the very opposite of NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 16:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Point Of View

The point of view of the article has been tagged since May 2010

Wikify

The need to be wikified and meet Wikipedia's Manual of Style has been tagged since August 2010

Primary Sources

The need for more third party sources has been tagged since August 2010

Improve References

The verifiability and need for additional citations in the article has been tagged since August 2010

Many of the references you included in the article were published recently. However, I noticed that several references are over a decade old. It would be beneficial to see the dated references replaced with newer references.

No Original Research

The article needs to follow Wikipedia's no original research guidelines, tagged since August 2010

Conflict of Interest

A conflict of interest concern has been tagged since February 2011

Current status of EMDR in psychology

This article currently reads like a piece of advocacy for EMDR. The controversy section indicates there is or has been debate in the psychological community about the efficacy of this treatment, but this is buried deep within the article. The lead section is unclear about the current status of the treatment.

I am not an expert in this topic, but the promotional tone of the article is a big red flag, since articles on uncontroversial topics usually have no need to adopt such a tone. Preliminary research indicates that this treatment is still regarded with some uncertainty; for example, in 2013 the WHO recommended it for treatment of PTSD but stated that the quality of evidence was "low" and noted that "There is currently no consensus on the effectiveness of EMDR [...] between different clinical practice guidelines."

Can someone in the field comment on the current scientific consensus (or lack thereof) on this topic? 67.188.230.128 (talk) 04:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for getting this discussion going. The 2013 WHO report states under recommendation 14 on page 38 (referring to psychological interventions for adults with PTSD)

'Individual or group cognitive -behavioural therapy (CBT) with a trauma focus, eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) or stress management should be considered for adults with PTSD.

Strength of recommendation: standard Quality of evidence: moderate for individual CBT, EMDR; low for group CBT, stress management'

The p37 quote 'There is currently no consensus on the effectiveness of EMDR [...] between different clinical practice guidelines' may be referring to clinical practice guidelines within WHO. But it is clear they later recommend EMDR as a treatment for PTSD in adults. Also see this WHO press release concerning the document:

I'm qualified in psychology but I don't practice EMDR. In my opinion this Wikipedia article misrepresents the consensus on EMDR within the community of professional psychologists. Like I said in my comments, the treatment is considered to have efficacy for PTSD by many national professional psychologist boards including the American Psychology Association, the British Psychological Society and the Australian Psychological Society. It is an accepted and validated treatment, but you wouldn't be aware of that by reading the article in it's present state. There is far too much emphasis on the controversies, little on the mainstream acceptance. See this article from the British Psychological Society which states 'EMDR has now firmly taken its place as an established treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)': Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 05:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The WHO paper supports that, see p189, 199. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

You're right, I misread that. The "low" quality was for the categories other than adult PTSD.

I did a bit more reading and It looks like the current views on the topic can be summed up as follows:

• Efficacy of EMDR as treatment for PTSD in adults is well-established
• EMDR is about as effective as CBT and exposure therapy for treatment of PTSD
• Efficacy of EMDR for other related conditions (e.g. PTSD in children) is not well-established
• The mechanism of EMDR and role of eye movements remains a subject of debate

It seems like initial criticism focused on the lack of theoretical foundation, scant evidence (at the time), and rapid commercialization of the therapy by its inventor. As a response to this criticism, increasingly rigorous research was done which established the effectiveness of the therapy. But the theoretical foundations have yet to be fully elucidated.

Given that this is the case, the article should address this rather than simply listing the benefits of the therapy like a brochure. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I complete disagree with all of this. It is a well-established treatment in that it is a structured therapy and you can receive reimbursement for it. But, that is all. Other studies have definitely shown how flimsy the research is for EMDR. The controversy is not so much whether or not EMDR works, it is whether or not the bilateral stimulation is the curative factor, or if the curative factor has absolutely nothing to do with EMDR and is more the heavy CBT and rapport-building built into the 8 phases. Having read much of the research myself, and knowing that the World Health Organization even admits to how controversial the efficacy is, I can tell you that general acceptance of EMDR is far from occurring. Furthermore, do not be surprised if research from the neurosciences completely debunks EMDR in the next decade or two. The neurosciences are demonstrating that memory more than likely does not work in the brain the way it is thought to in EMDR, which would turn the whole bilateral stimulation upside down on its head. See Antonio Damasio's book Self Comes To Mind: Constructing the Conscious Brain. Urstadt (talk) 00:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

References

I'm in the field and am glad to see the lively debate here in the talk section. I see grad students and early career psychologists uncritically look to EMDR as a solution for PTSD and trauma which creates an increasing groundswell of support. Although this is probably elucidated in the articles referred to above, Shapiro reported a success rate of around 90% for EMDR as described her dissertation. This level of success is rare for any psychological treatment. It is astounding that there is so little discussion about a therapy which reported a remarkable initial efficacy but has evolved over the years only to have parity with other treatments for PTSD. As critical attention focused on EMDR she has altered the training and broadened the eye movement component to "bi - lateral stimulation" which in practice can be tapping on a client's knee's. There is not, in fact, any eye-movement desensitization happening at all. When one also considers that Shapiro alone trains those who run the workshops, EMDR looks more like a brand of treatment which has been carefully managed into legitimacy as a kind of treatment. Therapists, even psychologists, know that clients recognize the EMDR label and also know they can get paid for using it. There is little to no incentive to criticize EMDR as long as it can make the claim that it is no worse than other treatments. I also would not be surprised to see neuroscience debunk EMDR but it is crucial to remember that EMDR is a moving target. If eye-movement was dropped as a necessary component in the face of mounting criticism it would not be surprising to see the bi-lateral stimulation similarly dropped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.42.68 (talk) 01:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

My understanding from a presentation that Iris Engelhard give recently (December 2016), is that many secondary working memory tasks are as good as eye movement. Additionally, I think I'm correct in saying that bi-lateral stimulation is no longer considered a satisfactory explanation, because up and down eye movements were shown to be as good as left to right. I don't think she's written a review paper yet, but part of the story is in her more recent publications (https://www.uu.nl/staff/imengelhard/0#tabPublicaties) Earcanal (talk) 10:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Quality of sources

Recent edits have cited a meta-analysis from Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing. This is a crackpot journal whose editors-in-chief are leading crackpots specialising in crackpottery. It does not meet WP:MEDRS. Famous_dog (c) 10:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Famousdog whom i have never before encountered. Jytdog (talk) 10:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Was that a pre-emptive strike against accustions of sockpuppetry? ;-) Famous_dog (c) 11:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

no, was just saying "hi" and "very pleased to meet you!" Jytdog (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, hi right back at your bad self! Famous_dog (c) 08:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Can only find one such edit (48) referencing half a sentence --Iztwoz (talk) 12:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Fine, replace "edits" with "edit" in my previous comment - but wait, now you're citing a book as a source for EMDR being "evidence-based"? I think the threshold for sources needs to be a bit higher than that considering the arguments raging in the "Controversy" section. Famous_dog (c) 13:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

What Is EMDR?

Maybe I Don't Understand Wikipedia: What Is EMDR? with the emphasis on "is"

After a couple of years of near-elation in what I learned using Wikipedia, I now find I am notably disappointed in our articles at least half of the time. This article introduces a new type of article failure by failing to tell me What EMDR Is. I'm reminded of how I heard something like 15 radio reports of "3-D printing" about what what it could do, without hearing anything concrete of what it was. Then I stumbled upon a 3-D printer at a library that told me what the talking hadn't bothered to describe. That's exactly the problem here! Anyone able to include a photo of someone giving EMDR?

Paragraph one calls it first a form of psychotherapy. Okay. No problem there, but I knew that, and there are, oh, either 26 or 89 forms, differing greatly. Para. 1 goes on: this form does something with distressing memories to help with mental illness. All psychotherapy does that, doesn't it? We have three pages of text here that tell me Very Little of what that "something" is. Anyone care to help with this? I can't, since I don't know. No one else can learn what EMDR really IS on this page, either, as of Apr, 2017.

Maybe the article should be retitled "Effects and Controversies about EMDR." That way no one pretends to be telling me what is in any detail.

Paragraph 3 may come closest. It talks of having "the patient recall distressing images while receiving one of several types of bilateral sensory input, such as side to side eye movements." How is such normal movement of eyes "bilateral sensory input?" Para. 3 also speaks of 8 phases. Is side-to-side eye movement one of these phases, or is it really the whole technique?

Yet later we write of EMDR without eye movements: "no difference between control no-eye-movement control groups and EMDR-as-written experimental groups." Again "no difference between eye-movement experimental groups and no-eye-movement controls." Soon it speaks of "finger-tapping," but--Guess What--nobody bothered to spell out what that is. This isn't supposed to be an article by therapists, for therapists.

To conclude: suppose my 10-year-old wanted to know what EMDR was. We'd need a demonstration. Nothing in the article today would help us know What or Where (on the body or elsewhere?) or How to demonstrate something, except that maybe it had something to do with the eyes, except that some versions don't. If my 10-year-old had never seen an orchestra conductor, we could show a video of one and say it was an example of EMDR and nobody could prove us wrong by concrete, specific info given on dear Wikipedia's article on Apr 2, 2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moabalan (talk • contribs) 17:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC) I forgot to sign

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)

• 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)

  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)

• 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)

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. Famous_dog (c) 09:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, blimey. No, I didn't make those changes. Caught up now! Famous_dog (c) 09:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. Famous_dog (c) 09:05, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

Agree, and have edited the heading. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

I've blended it with the history section. i think it fits best there Jytdog (talk) 07:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

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,, 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)

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)