Talk:Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing

... 'effectiveness is provided by the underlying therapy, not from EMDR's distinctive features.'

Stated as fact, rather than theory. Please amend, I do not have editing rights. Full sentence is "It has been called a purple hat therapy because any effectiveness is provided by the underlying therapy (or the standard treatment), not from EMDR's distinctive features." ~~ WykiP (talk) 01:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

It is an accurate summary of the cited source as it is. It is unclear what the basis to 'amend' it would be. MrOllie (talk) 01:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 April 2024

In this section, there should be clarification of the data used in the citation research contradicting the efficacy of EMDR. General statements or summaries limit the understanding of the criticism or validity of EMDR. What/where/how is the exact disagreement explained.

Training

Shapiro was criticized 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.[15][16] This included requiring the completion of an EMDR training program in order to be qualified to administer EMDR properly after researchers using the initial written instructions found no difference between no-eye-movement control groups and EMDR-as-written experimental groups. Further changes in training requirements and/or the definition of EMDR included requiring level II training when researchers with level I training still found no difference between eye-movement experimental groups and no-eye-movement controls and deeming "alternate forms of bilateral stimulation" (such as finger-tapping) as variants of EMDR by the time a study found no difference between EMDR and a finger-tapping control group.[15] Such changes in definition and training for EMDR have been described as "ad hoc moves [made] when confronted by embarrassing data".[17] 91.217.105.54 (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

You can find that information in the cited sources. Click on the little numbers. - MrOllie (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Has there been any new evidence on EMDR in the last 16 years?

@Bon courage, you've reverted several people who've said that evidence has been gathered in the last 16 years, even though there are multiple sources in the article that show that. Can we get consensus that evidence has been gathered in the last 16 years and therefore the 2008 point needs to be removed the summary? Tom B (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Has the National Institute of Medicine changed their view? It's due to mention. Research has tailed off since EMDR's heyday and many views are simply settled. Bon courage (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

what one country's institute said in 2008 isn't weighty enough to be in lead, compared with all the research undertaken since 2008 and all the institutions such as the UN, EU, UK etc, Tom B (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, now you're edit warring. Suppressing one view that you evidently don't like is POV-pushing. Bon courage (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I see no indication that their view has changed, and the IoM view would seem to be just as relevant as the other organizations mentioned in the lead. MrOllie (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, seems a bit odd to exclude orgs according to their view. Bon courage (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

not according to their view, but that it is out of date. That I see 2008 as 16 years ago and lots of evidence has been undertaken since then, isn't a point of view, it is maths, Tom B (talk) 08:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

it's also merely one institution from one country, not a government or the UN etc. Again, that I think that isn't a point of view, it's a fact. You thinking something the NHS and UN uses is fringe science is POV pushing and edit warring. That something is supported by the UN, EU and UK means it cannot be fringe or pseudoscience, Tom B (talk) 08:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

What rubbish. The most recent MEDRS on this seem to view it just as pseudoscientific fluff, working just because of the non-fluff basis (i.e. the not EMDR parts). Bon courage (talk) 09:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Got a source? that it is supported by the UN, EU and UK is not rubbish, Tom B (talk) 09:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

The rubbish is the WP:OR that because of this that or the other, we can ignore RS because it "cannot be" fringe or pseudoscience. I suggest reading this page's archives. Bon courage (talk) 09:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

That something is supported by the UN, EU and UK isn't OR, Tom B (talk) 09:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

the World Health Organization in 2023 recommended EMDR for adults and children treating PTSD with moderate evidence. The American Psychological Association recommended EMDR for PTSD treatment in 2023. Similarly, other international and national health organizations have provided varying levels of endorsement for EMDR, recognizing it as an effective treatment option for PTSD. I.e it cannot be fringe science. The World Health Organisation is not fringe, Tom B (talk) 09:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

And the thread at FTN is also useful.[1] Bon courage (talk) 09:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Of course it can be fringe science. These groups are subject to politics just like any other - look at the WHO's record on Traditional Chinese Medicine, the APA on Energy psychology. India has a whole ministry set up to promote Ayurveda and Homeopathy. MrOllie (talk) 11:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Caro 2023 systematic review

I've just added the 2023 Cochrane review by Caro et al., doi:10.1002/14651858.CD013361.pub2, they found, "The evidence base for the effectiveness of other psychotherapeutic interventions for sexually abused children and adolescents is limited, particularly in relation to… EMDR." More research is needed to establish the effectiveness of EMDR in this context. --Notgain (talk) 02:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

'EMDR is controversial within the psychological community.'

Needs better referencing for such a broad claim regarding the views of an entire body, two sources are 20+ years old, and one recent citation is based on an online survey of 20 psychologists from turkey and bosnia, despite most of the article's contents discussing and/or referencing those working in america or western europe. Transgenderoriole (talk) 22:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

The sourcing is fine - keep in mind that the lead section is a summary of the rest of the article and is also considered to be supported by the citations found later - for example in the 'Pseudoscience' section. MrOllie (talk) 23:02, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

EMDR has since been reclassified as an evidence based treatment by much of the psychological community. The remaining controversy is around the mechanism underlying the technique - is it science based? [2] —Notgain (talk) 02:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Here’s a more recent critique with with McNally as coauthordoi:10.1007/978-3-319-24612-3_895 —Notgain (talk) 02:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

The remaining controversy is about whether the additions that EMDR makes on top of CBT actually do anything, or if the efficacy is solely due to the portions in common with CBT. MrOllie (talk) 02:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Does this quote (Wright et al 2024 doi:10.1017/S0033291723003446 ) sum it up?, They say "While the effectiveness of EMDR against [Weight List Control] has been established, it is unclear what the additive benefit of the eye movements are. Some researchers argue that the eye movements are unnecessary, while others argue that they have an added advantage" cites doi:10.5127/jep.02821 --Notgain (talk) 03:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

We have several other sources that make the point more clearly, they're already cited in the article. MrOllie (talk) 03:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure leaning heavily on the mcnally sources is enough either to verify the thought of the professional psychological community but I think removing those 3 current in line citations and updating them (i can't edit as page is restricted) should be fairly agreeable. In addition, the lead does mention disagreements between organisations/bodies regarding the effectiveness but only touches on critique of the actual method being untestable. While the lead does paint a mixed picture, I think the specific claim that EMDR is controversial within the psychological community (again, the community where?, government bodies or independent organisations/solo campaigners?) is vague and unecessarily generalising of both the practice and the critiques of various aspects of it (not to mention that EMDR practitioners are members of the professional psychological community too and require accreditation beforehand). It would be much more beneficial if the specifics of the controversy were explored as 'EMDR' and 'untestable methods that are part of EMDR' are not the same, and EMDR treatment plans/methods are not homogeneous across practioners. Transgenderoriole (talk) 11:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

You should have a look at the talk page archives, the present wording is a compromise solution that saw a lot of discussion. Reading that discussion should provide insight into why the article is at it is. MrOllie (talk) 12:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)