Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:21, 30 July 2010

Psychology NA‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology NA This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Archive 1

all my comments were removed

The changes i made on Monday appear to have been removed without discussion.

I changed the previous content because it was out of date and inconsistent with emerging literature (last two years). This was necessary as the conclusions on the pages were firstly at odds with the findings of committees from around the world that EMDR is evidence based practise. Hence the section titled ‘Effectiveness: expert consensus guidelines’. Their resultant views are likely to present a more balanced view than what I read when I opened the page last week. I think this section needs to stay and only be chaged when new guidelines emerge.

Secondly any suggestions that the treatment is not an empirically supported is absurd. Especially given recent studies such as Van der Kolk's et al (2007) work published in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry that EMDR out performed Fluoxetine, Rothbaums large and very rigorous study published in Journal of Traumatic Stress on EMDR versus traditional exposure, the most recent meta-analytic study by Shidler and Wagner (2006) in Psychological Medicine. Any discussion on effectiveness needs to consider current studies.

Thirdly the article ignores reviews and a process study by implying that EMDR works the same as traditional exposure. WE now know this does not seem to be the case for details see Lee, C. W., Taylor, G., & Drummond, P. (2006). The active ingredient in EMDR; is it traditional exposure or dual focus of attention? Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 13, 97-107. Any discussion on mechanism of action needs to account for process studies on the methods.

Finally I found it very odd that a science based publication was describing the recent history of what happened to an institution that once provided training to a currently licensed practitioner. Seemed liked a personal attack to me not a scientific argument.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dr Chris Lee (talk • contribs) 05:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

I appreciate all the effort that you made, and agree that it is important Misplaced Pages articles be current. I suggest however that a section on CONTROVERSIES be added, as this is an important part of EMDR's history. Also there are still some individuals who are opposed to this therapy. Lmaxfield 10:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

the evalution section and the controversy section require integration I think. It is not relevant if someone supports or opposed the method, it matters that the presentation of material be npov. Fremte (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if the evaluation section and the controversy section should be integrated. By the evaluation section I assume you mean the 'emperical evidence regarding EMDR' section. I do not see how one would integrate these two sections. The emperical evidence either demonstrates that EMDR is effective, or not, that it is either considered efficacious in the treatment of trauma, or not, that it is better, equal, or not as effective as other therapies and so on. This section requires a simple balanced presentation of the literature that describes the current status of these findings. - And as mentioned above, it is absurd to suggest here that EMDR is not emperically supported. EMDR has established efficacy in the treatment of PTSD. This is not a point of controversy.

The controversy, as is seems to be presented here, is a seperate issue from EMDR's effectiveness. The controversy is whether eye movements are a necessary component of effective treatment. The second controversial point is whether EMDR is similar to traditional exposure. A presentation of these issues should be kept seperate, as at this time, unlike evidence for EMDR's effectiveness, there is no clear evidence either way - although there is evidence now that EMDR is not exposure, and that using EMDR without eye movements results is less effective outcomes.

What appeared to be missing from the controversy section was a presentation of the seperate body of literature that has explored what effects eye movements have on memory, cognition, and physiology during the process of EMDR. I have added a summary of this. I have also added some references of research that has demonstrated that eye movements are a necessary component to treatment(i.e. Wilson et al., 1996; Shapiro, 1989; Boudewyns et al., 1993; and Gosselin & Matthews, 1995). I can see that I have added only research that supports the necesseity of eye movements in EMDR, but to date, I am not aware of any scientific research that has shown EMDR to be effective without the eye movement component. Sschubert (talk) 14:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Outside reader

Hey, what happened to the debate, the criticism, the scientific research, the citations? Did that last editor Lmaxfield mean to remove it all?Fainites 21:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi My effort was to remove the many errors in the article, and to update it with accurate scientific information. EMDR is an established psychotherapy. I retained mention of the critics. I emphasized the scientific research and added citations. I added many more citations than the original article contained. Do you want more citations? I would be happy to add more; I was not sure how many there should be. For example, there are about 20 randomized clinical trials on PTSD treatment with EMDR; 10 of these are recent. Do you want the citations for all these? Also there are 5 meta-analyses showing EMDR and CBT equivalence. I only cited 2. SHould the others be added? Also there are about 10-12 international treatment guidelines stating that EMDR is a level A recommended treatment for PTSD. SHould these be added as well? thanks Louise Maxfield

Maybe I was looking at it when you were in the middle of it all as yesterday evening all scientific citations had disappeared! I was just posting a warning in case it was vandalism. Glad to see them all back. I've added a link to Devilly 2002 Fainites 18:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I notice that the footnotes are not showing up on the page. Is there something I am missing about how to make that Happen? Thanks Louise Maxfield

I've gone through the first paragraph and fixed the refs and given you a proper notes and references section. If you type out the refs properly (just copy what I did or look at this link cos it's different for books,) it does all the refs for you. Once you've fixed all the refs you can get rid of the previous ref section. You need to add in the full title and citation. The idea being than anybody can then look it up, either by googling the title and name, or preferably if you can add a direct link. If you want any more help, don't hesitate to ask, but I've not that long worked out how to do it myself! Also, your posts don't give your name and time and date. If you're logged in, just press 4 tildas and it does it automatically.

on content, I don't think that if there are 5 meta-analysis you should only add two positive ones in the intro when the biggest, Devilly's, is not positive.Fainites 22:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Also the Bradley one has huge limitations.Fainites 22:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, there's a message on your talk page from one of the regular editors here.Fainites 22:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed all the refs in a proper notes and refs section which now link to all the little ref numbers in the article so the refs now work. They are not complete as they need PMID or ISSN numbers. Also the ones that are books should be set out differently to research or other peer reviewed papers. I haven't removed the old ref section as there are some articles in there that didn't have links to ref numbers so somebody needs to sort these out as proper refs.Fainites 17:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Major rewrites

Some anonymous user User:58.178.125.188 has taken it upon himself to majorly rewrite the article... are we happy with the changes? Kat, Queen of Typos 00:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Although I have not edited content, I did redo all your references in a workable form. I note the rewrite has removed the majority of references, including any that were mildly critical and also some meta-analysis, eg Lilienfield and Devilly, both major players in experimental psychology. The whole article is now an inaccurate advertising puff. Whoever did it has also scattered little numbers throughout which look like references but actually aren't and don't link to anything. I'd revert the whole lot and invite whoever did it to discuss on the talkpage first. I know nobody owns articles, but removing all controversy and verified and credible references wholesale is against wiki policies. Fainites 18:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the entire article should be reverted to a version before that anon user edited this. There are now footnotes (36) that are linked to nothing and no citations are provided. I propose that we begin again with the version before anon user 58.178... OK?DPeterson 22:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with DP. Fainites 22:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Faintes. So, unless I hear any comment to the contrary, I will do this in the next couple of days...leaving some time for others to comment. DPeterson 23:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree also. Fainites, I wasn't referring to your edits. You were signed in. :) I posted on the anon user's talk page to invite him/her here, but apparently he/she hasn't come. Kat, Queen of Typos 06:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually some of the edits are very detailed, but unfortunately as there are no references it's impossible to check their validity. I did wonder if it was a newbie who just doesn't yet understand how to set up references and therefore needs assistance, but removing existing references does not bode well. On a quick check he's removed 7 out of 18 references including all the meta-analyses and any critical scientific analysis (except the sceptics dictionary which doesn't really count and he attempted to remove that !). Fainites 18:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I did the revert...maybe now we can add back what was relevant and sourced. DPeterson 22:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought that the new editor did a nice job of polishing the material, bringing it up to date with factual information. It looks to me as though the new references are now working. I'd like to suggest that we add a NEW SECTION -- called CONTROVERSIES so that controversial comments are not interspersed throughout the whole article, which will only foster dissension. That new section can contain the material from Devilly and Lillienfeld. Lmaxfield 10:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea Lmaxfield. Kat, Queen of Typos 11:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm on the same page with you two. I like the recent edits...very good. I was also thinking that something about any controversies needed to be added and creating a specific section for that is a great idea. RalphLender 14:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me.Fainites 17:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

all my comments were removed

The changes i made on Monday appear to have been removed without discussion.

I changed the previous content because it was out of date and inconsistent with emerging literature (last two years). This was necessary as the conclusions on the pages were firstly at odds with the findings of committees from around the world that EMDR is evidence based practise. Hence the section titled ‘Effectiveness: expert consensus guidelines’. Their resultant views are likely to present a more balanced view than what I read when I opened the page last week. I think this section needs to stay and only be chaged when new guidelines emerge.

Secondly any suggestions that the treatment is not an empirically supported is absurd. Especially given recent studies such as Van der Kolk's et al (2007) work published in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry that EMDR out performed Fluoxetine, Rothbaums large and very rigorous study published in Journal of Traumatic Stress on EMDR versus traditional exposure, the most recent meta-analytic study by Shidler and Wagner (2006) in Psychological Medicine. Any discussion on effectiveness needs to consider current studies.

Thirdly the article ignores reviews and a process study by implying that EMDR works the same as traditional exposure. WE now know this does not seem to be the case for details see Lee, C. W., Taylor, G., & Drummond, P. (2006). The active ingredient in EMDR; is it traditional exposure or dual focus of attention? Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 13, 97-107. Any discussion on mechanism of action needs to account for process studies on the methods.

Finally I found it very odd that a science based publication was describing the recent history of what happened to an institution that once provided training to a currently licensed practitioner. Seemed liked a personal attack to me not a scientific argument.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dr Chris Lee (talk • contribs) 05:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

I appreciate all the effort that you made, and agree that it is important Misplaced Pages articles be current. I suggest however that a section on CONTROVERSIES be added, as this is an important part of EMDR's history. Also there are still some individuals who are opposed to this therapy. Lmaxfield 10:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Dr Chris Lee may be new to Misplaced Pages and unsure of how it works, but I did warn him on his talk page that we were going to revert the edits because of the anonymous user's edits prior to his - so no, the edits were not reverted without discussion. Kat, Queen of Typos 05:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

re reply to

You are right a section on matters that are still controversial needs to be added I have done so and welcome any additional comments you wish to make Dr Chris Lee —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fainites (talk • contribs) 14:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

I like the additions...helpful.RalphLender 16:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Devilly's 2002 meta-analysis concludes (1) There is overwhelming evidence that eye movements are neither a necessary nor a useful addition to the procedure; (2) there is strong and consistent evidence that EMDR is better than no treatment, yet only as good as any other treatment that utilizes some aspect of exposure therapy; and (3) there is strong evidence that a full-exposure-based intervention package is superior to EMDR. There is also some evidence that "reprocessing" is likewise superfluous to EMDR and that the effects of EMDR dissipate over time. I think a synopsis of this could go in the controversy section. Fainites 22:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Good points.SamDavidson 23:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

How about, Devilly (2002) in a review and meta-analysis concludes that although EMDR is effective, it is because it operates as an exposure therapy for which the eyemovements are unecessary, and is neither as effective nor as long lasting as specific exposure therapy.Fainites 22:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you could add that and it would certainly be an improvement. DPeterson 00:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Fainites 19:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I also think for completeness sake the controversy section ought to contain a synopsis of the Herbert, Lilienfield meta-analysis. Fainites 19:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Meta-analysis

I have had to make changes to material reported in the devilly meta-analysis given we now have two more recent studies. Both looked at traditional exposure therapy and EMDR and found that they led to equivalent outcomes at follow-up (Bradley, Greene, Russ, Dutra, & Westen, 2005; Seidler & Wagner, 2006). This now appperas in the effectiiveness section. Also we do know that at 18 month follow-up treatment is still effective(Edmond & Rubin, 2004). Recent studies suggest that traditional exposure treatments may not be so robust over time unless cognitive therapy is included in the package (Tarrier & Sommerfield, 2004).

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. Edmond, T., & Rubin, A. (2004). Assessing the Long-Term Effects of EMDR: Results from an 18-Month Follow-Up Study with Adult Female Survivors of CSA. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 13(1), 69-86. Seidler, G. H., & Wagner, F. E. (2006). Comparing the efficacy of EMDR and trauma-focused Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy in the Treatment of PTSD: a meta–analytic study Psychological Medicine 36 1515-1522. Tarrier, N., & Sommerfield, C. (2004). Treatment of Chronic PTSD by Cognitive Therapy and Exposure: 5-Year Follow-Up. Behavior Therapy, 35(2), 231-246.

Chris Lee

I would only quibble with the construction of that paragraph as it says since then and then quotes 4 studies that predate Devilly!Fainites 13:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Fainites. Yes, this page has turned into nothing but a promotional page for EMDR. It's pointless editing by experts in the area because people who have a vested interest in EMDR will just edit those comments back out again. The same goes for the NLP page and all the other powertherapies pages. From their perspective their income is at stake not science. Ho-hum. Grant

Would you not make such sweeping statements? I have no vested interest in EMDR, myself, and I watch this page. Would you please just make your changes? Some of this stuff you guys talk about in here is over my head, but I try to understand... I don't understand doctor-speak sometimes, but I don't know that I see people editing out because they have a vested interest. Kat, Queen of Typos 21:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Kat, I have made edits and changes and they just get edited out - so it's pointless. And yes, I am the "Devilly" who has done all the research on this topic. That is my point. My question is: why would someone who doesn't understand "doctor-speak" be editing a page on treatment strategies? Grant

Have you read Misplaced Pages's policy on not being too technical? These articles need to be accessible to normal people - as it is it's already borderline too technical, IMO. Kat, Queen of Typos 07:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

importance rating

EMDR is a pretty hot topic in psychology and is quickly becoming one of the most widely used (for better or for worse) methods in all of clinical psychology. it should at least be of medium if not high importance...128.239.158.219 04:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)albwus

Do you have a source for that? Kat, Queen of Typos 05:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with a medium rating. SamDavidson 17:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Who decides the ratings? Fainites 20:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Review of newest section needed

User:68.146.133.56 has added a long section on how post-traumatic stress causes an immediate reaction to past traumas - I think it needs a review, and may possibly be more appropriate in the article about PTSD. Kat, Queen of Typos 02:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Since no one seems interested in commenting, I've removed it - I don't think it fits this article well. Kat, Queen of Typos 21:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Reference edit needed

I do not edit references well... at the end of the first paragraph, it says "Appendix A. Handbook of EMDR and Family Therapy Processes. New York: Wiley." - could someone edit that into a proper ref link? Kat, Queen of Typos 21:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. As well, I'm changing the journal references to follow the tamplate on this page, for standardization as per WP:MEDMOS. One distinct advantage is having the link to the abstact of the article, which makes the research more accessible. I'm just giving this heads-up so nobody thinks I'm making wild changes for no good reason. Absentis 17:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Any relation to dianetics?

I read the Dianetics book quite a while ago, so I may be remembering incorrectly, but this therapy seems similar to the engram clearing talked about in that book. Was just wondering if anyone else knew of a connection between the two?Ronar 17:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know much about dianetics, but I've never heard them compared. Kat, Queen of Typos 07:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Only insofar as both are scientifically dubious concepts. I.e., http://skepdic.com/emdr.html EMDR is more New Age-y, Dianetics is more old-skool pulp sci-fi wacky with an undertone of fascism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.120.26 (talk) 20:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget that both Dianetics and EMDR also put vast amounts of money into the pockets of people whose sole qualification to practice medicine is a $29 certificate from the originating body. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.120.26 (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I am wondering why you would make such a false statement...???! To be trained in EMDR, a person must have the minimum of a masters degree and be licensed as a mental health professional by an association that ensures accountability to the public. Lmaxfield 05:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Meta analysis criticism

Removed text: However, this analysis has a methodological flaw. The degrees of freedom used to examine the level of significance of the effect was based on the number of studies rather than the number of participants which is the convention. When this is corrected, the actual effect size obtained of r=.15 (eye movement over no eye movement) is significant.

I doubt the veracity of these statements for a few reasons. Firstly, the criticism comes from a source with a vested interest in EMDR, and was not published in an academic journal. Secondly, a well-known researcher from the IoP stated that the meta-analysis was "well done". Unfortunately, my knowledge of statistics does not (yet) cover meta analysis, so I can't really say one way or the other. Is there an objective expert that can weigh in on this? Absentis 18:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Eye movement controversy

Text: A recent review highlighted the evidence that the eye movement in EMDR does produce a differential effect. In contrast to no eye movement, eye movements produce changes in physiological measures including reductions in blood pressure, heart rate and galvanic skin response.
Some studies have supported a differential effect of eye movements over eyes stationary. In comparison to no eye movements and a passive visual interference task, eye movements resulted in a greater reduction in vividness of undergraduate students emotional memories. Similarly, memory recollections after eye movements were less vivid and less distressing compared to both a finger tapping and no dual-task control condition. Other dual tasks such as spatial tapping have also proven less effective than eye movements in reducing the distress and vividness of memories of personal experiences. However this differential effect for eye movement was not found for non personal memories such as photographs that contained distressing content. Subsequent research has shown that eye movement facilitates memory processing for episodic memory but not semantic memory. In fact the mean effect size for each study that has investigated eye movement over no eye movement was found to increase from .15 to .28, when studies of contrived traumas were removed from the analysis.
The effects of eye movements compared to an eye stationary condition was also investigated for both positive and negative memories. The eye movement condition yielded greater reductions than the eye stationary condition in vividness, subjective emotional arousal, and physiological arousal for memories connected with vivid images associated with fear and anxiety. The reduction in vividness also occurred with memories of positive experiences.

I've taken this text out of the section on 'eye movements' because it does not deal directly with whether or not eye movements are a necessary part of the therapy. This text is better suited to the section 'How does EMDR work?', and should be integrated together. Absentis 21:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The above summary does not directly explain how EMDR works. Rather it does appear to make a case for the necessity, and the role of eye movements in EMDR. For example, it is stating that eye movements, compared to control conditions, create certain physiological responses, lead to negative autobiographical memories becoming less vivid and distressing, reduces overall subjective distress, and are more effective than other dual tasks such as tapping. Therefore I feel that this information is relevant to the controversy section re. 'are eye movements necessary', and should be integrated back into the section. Sschubert (talk) 16:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Effectiveness: expert consensus guidelines

I've hidden the text under this headline because I have trouble believing this kind of information belongs in an encyclopedia article. I could understand a reference to an organization in terms of the history of the therapy (like when the APA recognized it as a therapy) but to simply list all the organizations/associations that support the therapy is clearly POV pushing. Unless a clear consensus can be reached I'll delete the information in due time. Absentis 21:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The APA never recognized it as a therapy. Read the text more carefully. FatherTree 14:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this American Psychiatric Association PTSD treatment guideline (approved in June 2004) clearly shows they recognize EMDR as an effective therapy. Sadly, it is you who needs to read the text more carefully. Absentis 14:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Read the disclaimer at the top. FatherTree 00:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I've read more than just the disclaimer. So? Absentis 01:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The comment on the American Psychiatric Association Guidelines cited by Marssociety refers to prevention of PTSD and acute stress which there is considerable controversy over what works.

However this comment has been confused with what the guidelines say about treatment of PTSD. On the same page as the quote (p14), and just 3 sentences latter the guidelines report that EMDR is effective as a treatment for core symptoms of both acute and chronic PTSD.

The misunderstanding is due to confusing prevention interventions with treatments. Other interantional guidelines that assert that EMDR is science based practice for treatment of PTSD are from the United Kingdom by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (2005) and in Australia by the Australian Centre for Posttraumatic Mental Health (2007).

National Institute for Clinical Excellence (2005). Post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD): The management of adults and children in primary and secondary care. London: NICE Guidelines.

Australian Centre for Posttraumatic Mental Health (2007). Australian guidelines for the treatment of adults with acute stress disorder and post traumatic stress disorder. ACPTMH, Melbourne, Victoria

Dr Chris Lee 09:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that under the emperical evidence regarding EMDR that the section on conclusions from international scientific committees was omitted. I am of the opinion that it is worth noting that certain international guidelines regard EMDR effective in the treatment of trauma. The conclusions of international committees are based reviews of scientific evidence for the effectiveness of EMDR. I believe that this type of information would be of interest to readers of this page. I have added this section to the page once again, however for a more balanced view it may be worth also adding some references to international guidelines that do not support the use of EMDR in treating trauma.

What I am not sure about in this section is the following statement in the introductory paragraph... "However, the evaluation of eye movements and other lateralized activities indicates that they are not required, thus the evidence for EMDR may actually evidence for trauma therapy in a more general sense and not for the unique eye movement component " Would such a comment be better suited in the section under "controversy" - "Are the eye movements necessary"?

Sschubert (talk) 17:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Not evidence based

Well I do not have to time to do this now. But I hope you realize that EMDR has never been proven to be effective. If you think it has please point me to the study. And many thousand if not millions of dollars will spent on it from a nearly bankrupt medical system so operators can make big bucks off of troubled people. FatherTree 14:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read citations 11-25 in the article. These journal articles speak to the effectiveness of EMDR. If there are problems with any of them, please bring it up. Until then, Misplaced Pages is not your soapbox. Absentis 14:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

And there are just as many sources that say EMDR is not effective. You have cherry picked and are pushing a POV. FatherTree 00:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Please add the sources you're talking about! Just don't remove any legitimate studies m'kay? My only problem with your edits is that you removed verifiable information. Absentis 01:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Absentis is also not the sole editor of the page. If you feel EMDR is not effective, please feel free to expand the controversy section of the article, while remembering to cite your sources. Kat, Queen of Typos 05:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the section on Devilly in that his particular meta-analysis that found that EMDR was not as effective or as long lasting as specific exposure therapy is at odds with every other meta-analysis that has ever been conducted (Bisson et al., 2007; Bradley et al., 2005; Seidler & Wagner, 2006; van Etten & Taylor, 1998). To include this outlier makes no sense. Previous page notes above refers to the Herbert et al. paper as a meta-analysis. This is not accurate. The Herbert paper is an opinion only article not a statistical analysis of trends in the literature. Dr Chris Lee 06:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Bisson, J. I., Ehlers, A., Matthews, R., Pilling, S., Richards, D., & Turner, S. (2007). Psychological treatments for chronic post-traumatic stress disorder: Systematic review and meta-analysis. British Journal of Psychiatry, 190(2), 97-104.

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.

Seidler, G. H., & Wagner, F. E. (2006). Comparing the efficacy of EMDR and trauma-focused Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy in the Treatment of PTSD: a meta–analytic study Psychological Medicine 36 1515-1522.

van Etten, M. L., & Taylor, S. (1998). Comparative Efficacy of Treatments for Post-traumatic Stress Disorder: A Meta-Analysis. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 5, 126-144.

I have also updated the information on eye movement in the light of recent research. Dr Chris Lee 09:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I re-added the Devilly section. Just because it does not agree with other studies, does not mean that we should take it out. This is exactly why we have the controversy section.

As well, I took some information out of the introduction. Some of the studies deal only with eye movement (and so should be considered later on in the article). Absentis 14:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Happy with the gist of your changes, however, if Devilly is left in, then all of the other meta-analyses references must also be included to fully reflect that it is a controversy. I have rewritten the controversy section because in its previous form it was disjointed, it seems to flow better now and references to both sides of the argument have been included. Dr Chris Lee 07:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

POV tag added to evaluation of effectiveness

The effectiveness section suffers from basic flaw of comparing EMDR with other treatments, but not presenting the research that discusses the controversy about the necessity of the eye movements. The "controvery" section later and this evaluation section require integration to objectively present the evaluation of the EMDR method. Fremte (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that there is some confusion here. There is a difference between the efficacy of a therapy and its mechanisms of action. The controversy is about the eye movements, not about whether EMDR is effective.

The controversy is about whether eye movements are one of the mechanisms by which EMDR achieves its good outcomes. There are those who argue that eye movements are superfluous, and there are those who point to a growing number of studies showing eye movements have valuable effects. However at this time, there is no clear evidence either way. It should be noted that we do not know why or how ANY psychotherapy works. For example, although there are lots of theories about how cognitive behavior therapy works, there is no conclusive evidence to date to support any of these theories. As Alan Kazdin (2005) wrote: “Perhaps the most neglected question in therapy research is the mechanisms by which treatment leads to change. For even our most well-studied, evidence-based treatments (e.g., cognitive therapy for depression) we do not know why the treatment works (i.e., through what processes)” (p. 186).

EMDR’s effectiveness is not controversial. EMDR has established efficacy in the treatment of PTSD. For example see the Cochrane Review and Bisson et al’s 2007 meta-analysis. Although there are still some folks who just can’t believe that EMDR works (smile), the evidence is there to provide solid support for its efficacy. It has been recommended in numerous treatment guidelines, as it achieves the same quality of outcome as the other highest rated treatment, cognitive behaviour therapy.

From the Cochrane Review: “Psychological treatments can reduce symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Trauma focused treatments are more effective than non-trauma focused treatments. This review concerns the efficacy of psychological treatment in the treatment of PTSD. There is evidence that individual trauma focused cognitive-behavioural therapy (TFCBT), eye movement desensitisation and reprocessing (EMDR), stress management and group TFCBT are effective in the treatment of PTSD. Other non-trauma focused psychological treatments did not reduce PTSD symptoms as significantly. There is some evidence that individual TFCBT and EMDR are superior to stress management in the treatment of PTSD at between 2 and 5 months following treatment, and also that TFCBT, EMDR and stress management are more effective than other therapies. There is insufficient evidence to show whether or not psychological treatment is harmful. Trauma focused cognitive behavioural therapy or eye movement desensitisation and reprocessing should be considered in individuals with PTSD.”

Cochrane Review: http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD003388/frame.html

Kazdin, A. E. (2005). Treatment Outcomes, Common Factors, and Continued Neglect of Mechanisms of Change. Clinical Psychology Science and Practice, 12, 184–188.

JONATHAN I. BISSON, ANKE EHLERS, ROSA MATTHEWS, STEPHEN PILLING, DAVID RICHARDS and STUART TURNER (2007). Psychological treatments for chronic post-traumatic stress disorder Systematic review and meta-analysis. BRITISH JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY, 190, 97-104. http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/reprint/190/2/97 Lmaxfield (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It is misleading to say that EMDR is effective but that the central mechanism on which the therapy is based may be unsupported. EMDR might be equivalent to singing with a patient during desensitization therapy; we would not accept that the singing was the ingredient that promoted the change, we would accept the desensitization as the change ingredient, even if the patient likes the singing due to the interesting theory of how singing activates a brain area that counteracts traumatic memories. I am not being flip or joking about the singing example, I have heard it discussed this way. Thus this article must present all of the perspectives on the method per WP:NPOV and not just the one you or any other contributor prefers. Respectfully, Fremte (talk) 00:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The "central mechanism" for all therapies is unsupported - even exposure therapy and desensitization! No one knows what the mechanisms of action are, for even the most recognized treatments (Kazdin, 2005). Your basic premise that the mechanisms of action must be empirically supported is invalid. You are imagining a far greater knowledge about therapeutic components than currently exists. For example, you keep inserting phrases saying that EMDR=imaginal exposure. Actually, there is evidence that EMDR is not exposure and evidence that removing eye movements results in poorer outcomes. Please read the EMDR literature and cited studies before coming to conclusions based on things that you have heard "discussed this way". In areas of controversy it is important to read the original documents and not rely on reviews conducted by others. Lmaxfield (talk) 16:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with lmaxfield as this section is not about whether the mechanisms of action are emperically supported, as this argument is invalid. The mechanisms of action underlying most therapies are unclear. This includes traditional exposure, as the exact critical processes that lead to recovery of truama with this form of therapy is also not entirely clear, and remains a point of controversy. Just because the mechanisms of action of a treatment are not entirely understood, does not mean that a treatment is not effective. Think about pharmacological theories that propose to explain how SSRIs work. These theories are limited, but this does not detract from the research that demonstrates their effectiveness. This section on 'emperical evidence regarding EMDR' should be reserved for evidence that demonstrates that EMDR either is, or is not, effective as a treatment for trauma or other disorders. A discussion regarding the underlying mechanisms of action should be reserved for the 'controversy' section. Is adding a tag directing the reader to the controversy section regarding these issues enough for the neutrality tag to be removed from this section? Sschubert (talk) 06:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

As there has been no further response as to how to resolve this NPOV dispute, the tag has temporarily been removed from this section. Await further discussion on how to work out a way to present competing views that is acceptable to all.Sschubert (talk) 13:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of false information

I deleted the following section from “Theoretical basis”. Fremte reinserted it, but I deleted it again because it is a gross defamation and inaccurate. It read: “This treatment was developed by Francine Shapiro. She created the therapy after noticing that she felt better about stressful thoughts if she moved her eyes while thinking about them. She was sitting on a bench in the woods while thinking about stressful events. She felt better afterwards and recalled looking from place to place while sitting there (e.g. bird, tree, ground, cloud, etc.). She assumed there may be something advantageous to moving the eyes while thinking of stressful events. However, it turned out that this relationship (between moving the eyes and fear decline) was simply a correlation. Thus, the active ingredient in EMDR is the imaginal exposure.” This is an inaccurate portrayal of Shapiro’s (1995) own description, in which she reported focusing on a distressing memory and noticing that her eyes were moving rapidly with resulting decreased distress. She never stated that she “looked from place to place (bird, tree). This is blatantly untrue and should not be included in the article. Furthermore, the statement “It turned out that this relationship (between moving the eyes and fear decline) was simply a correlation” is simply an invention of the writer, and is untrue in this context. Finally the conclusion that “active ingredient in EMDR is the imaginal exposure” is a theoretical statement that has no research evidence, and is therefore also false. Lmaxfield (talk) 15:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You appear to be taking a non-neutral point of view and evidently support EMDR. This is inappropriate tone for wikipedia. Misplaced Pages is supposed to represent all persepctives, not just the one you happen to like or support. I've read enough to know that there is a controversy about the mechanism for EMDR and that eye movements may not be required. There is only a theory about EMDR and the neurological and info processing explanations do not have an empirical basis. There are studies that indicate EMDR is equivalent to other forms of exposure therapy and there there is no specific bonus to using the eye movements. For a balanced presentation, these must be present with at least the prominance given to the theory advanced by proponents. Please look at WP:NPOV and apply this to your edits and contributions. You should also look at WP:AGF. I am not, nor is anyone else, your enemy when making edits and contributuions. Claiming that some comments within an article are "defamation" is an example of the and emotional and non-npov motivation that seems evident in your contributions to this article. Please calm down a little and learn how to contribute to wikipedia in the spirit intended and required. Fremte (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that you learn to contribute to a scientific article by reading the research and not posting opinions as though they are facts. You have been making many statements that are untrue and unsupported. Please read the literature, so that you can become informed about all sides of the issues and be current and up-tod-date in your knowledge. Knowing only one side is insufficent in a controversial area like this. You also need to become familiar with the language and concepts in the literature. For example, when you write (above) "There are studies that indicate EMDR is equivalent to other forms of exposure therapy and there there is no specific bonus to using the eye movements" you misunderstand the meaning of that statement in terms of the literature. That statement means that EMDR and exposure therapy are equivalent in results; it does not mean that they have equivalent processes or mechanisms of action because that question has only been evaluated in the 2 or 3 studies that compared the process of exposure and EMDR. These studies found that they were distinctly different processes (Rogers & Silver, 2002: Lee et al, 2006, 2007). As I said previously the field has limited knowledge about any therapy's mechanism of action. I completely agree that there is no clear evidence for the necessity of eye movements in EMDR. I have stated that previously in this Misplaced Pages article in several sections, and I have written widely about this deficit in scientific publications. However it should be noted that there is no evidence to show that they are superfluous either and it should be remembered that all of the research showing that EMDR is efficacious used eye movements. Nobody knows if the results would have been the same without eye movements until that type of research is conducted, which it has not yet been. One cannot say that the results would have been identical without research proving that that is true. You can only say that critics argue that the results would have been the same, but that that hypothesis has yet to be adequately tested. Lmaxfield (talk) 21:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Spare the ad hominum attacks please! We are all friends here!

I've been a reviewer for funding for new techniques and EMDR was not accepted due to the data not meeting evidence based treatment requirements. And, I've not been making statements in the article, rather looking at your deletes of things you disagree with. I dug up some of the info we reviewed in committee. Conclusion, using the gold, silver, bronze eval scheme for emdr was that it was "below bronze", possibly promising, but the need for eye movements or lateralized activity questionable. Is this enough to convince you of the need for a balanced presentation?

• McNally RJ. EMDR and Mesmerism: A comparative historical analysis. Journal of Anxiety Disorders 13:225-236, 1999.
• Lilienfeld SO. EMDR treatment: Less than meets the eye. Skeptical Inquirer 20(1):25-31, 1996.
• Cusack K, Spates CR. The cognitive dismantling of Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) treatment of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Journal of Anxiety Disorders 1999; 13 (1-2):87-99.
• Maxfield L, Hyer L. The relationship between efficacy and methodology in studies investigating EMDR treatment of PTSD. Journal of Clinical Psychol 2002; 58 (1):23-41.
• Sharpley CF, Montgomery IM, Scalzo LA. Comparative efficacy of EMDR and alternative procedures in reducing the vividness of mental images. Scandinavian Journal of Behaviour Therapy 1996; 25:37-42.
• Cahill SP. Counterpoint: Evaluating EMDR in Treating PTSD. Psychiatric Times 2000; 17 (7).
• Devilly GJ, Spence SH. The relative efficacy and treatment distress of EMDR and a cognitive-behavior trauma treatment protocol in the amelioration of posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Anxiety Disorders 1999; 13 (1-2):131-57.
• Taylor S, Thordarson DS, Maxfield L. Efficacy, speed, and adverse effects of three PTSD treatments: Exposure therapy, relaxation training, and EMDR. Canadian Psychology 2002; 43:139.
• Ironson G, Freund B, Strauss JL et al. Comparison of two treatments for traumatic stress: a community-based study of EMDR and prolonged exposure. Journal of Clin Psychol 2002; 58 (1):113-28.
• EMDR not mentioned: http://www.semel.ucla.edu/adc/AnxietyCD/PTSD/Consensus-PTSD_'04.pdf
• EMDR problems - expert testimony: http://www.cochranexpertestimony.com/publication_2002.htm

Fremte (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems strange that your committee only rated EMDR as "bronze" when it has been rated as a "gold" PTSD treatment by the American Psychiatric Association (2004), the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies (2007), the USA Departments of Veterans Affairs and Defense, the Cochrane Review (2007), the UK NICE guidelines, and the treatment guidelines from many countries including Israel, Ireland, Sweden, etc. EMDR is not a "new treatment"; its first randomized clinical trial was published in 1989, the first year for any randomized clinical trial (RCT) for PTSD. Here is a list of the randomized clinical trials which investigated EMDR treatment for PTSD:

• Carlson, J., Chemtob,C.M., Rusnak,K., et al (1998). Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR): treatment for combat-related post-traumatic stress disorder. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 11, 3-24.
• Chemtob, C. M., Nakashima, J., & Carlson, J. G. (2002). Brief-treatment for elementary school children with disaster-related PTSD: A field study. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58, 99-112.
• Devilly,G. J. & Spence, S.H. (1999). The relative efficacy and treatment distress of EMDR and a cognitive behaviour trauma treatment protocol in the amelioration of posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 13,131-157.
• Ironson,G. I., Freund, B., Strauss, J. L., et al (2002). Comparison of two treatments for traumatic stress: a community-based study of EMDR and prolonged exposure. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58,113-128.
• Lee,C.,Gavriel,H., Drummond, P., et al (2002). Treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder: a comparison of stress inoculation training with prolonged exposure and eye movement desensitization and reprocessing. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58, 1071-1089.
• Marcus, S.,Marquis, P. & Sakai,C. (1997). Controlled study of treatment of PTSD using EMDR in an HMO setting. Psychotherapy, 34, 307-315.
• Marcus, S., Marquis, P. & Sakai, C. (2004). Three- and 6-month follow-up of EMDR treatment of PTSD in an HMO setting. International Journal of Stress Management, 11, 195-208.
• Power,K.,McGoldrick,T., Brown, K., et al (2002). A controlled comparison of eye movement desensitisation and reprocessing versus exposure plus cognitive restructuring versus waiting list in the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 9, 299-318.
• Rogers, S., Silver, S., Goss, J., Obenchain, J., Willis, A., & Whitney, R. (1999). A single session, controlled group study of flooding and eye movement desensitization and reprocessing in treating posttraumatic stress disorder among Vietnam war veterans: Preliminary data. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 13, 119–130.
• Rothbaum, B. (1997). A controlled study of eye movement desensitization and reprocessing in the treatment of post-traumatic stress disordered sexual assault victims. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 61, 317-334.
• Rothbaum, B.O., Astin,M.C. & Marsteller, F. (2005). Prolonged exposure vs.EMDR for PTSD rape victims. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 18, 607-616.
• Scheck,M., Schaeffer, J. A. & Gillette,C. (1998). Brief psychological intervention with traumatized young women: the efficacy of eye movement desensitization and reprocessing. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 11, 24-44.
• Van der Kolk, B. A., Spinazzola, J., Blaustein, M. E., Hopper, J. W., Hopper, E. K., Korn, D. L., & Simpson, W. B. (2007). A randomized clinical trial of EMDR, fluoxetine and pill placebo in the treatment of PTSD: Treatment effects and long-term maintenance. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 68, 37-46.
• Vaughan, K., Armstrong, M.F., Gold, R., O'Connor, N., Jenneke, W., & Tarrier, N. (1994). A trial of eye movement desensitization compared to image habituation training and applied muscle relaxation in post-traumatic stress disorder. Journal of Behavior Therapy & Experimental Psychiatry, 25, 283-291.
• Wilson, S. A, Tinker, R. H., & Becker, L. A. (1995). Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) treatment for psychologically traumatized individuals. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 928-937.
• Wilson, S. A., Becker, L. A., & Tinker, R .H. (1997). Fifteen-month follow-up of eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) treatment for PTSD and psychological trauma. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65,1047-1056.

Here are some of the research studies which have investigated the mechanism of eye movements in EMDR:

• Andrade, J., Kavanagh, D., & Baddeley, A. (1997). Eye-movements and visual imagery: a working memory approach to the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 36, 209-223.
• Barrowcliff, A. L., Gray, N. S., Freeman, T. C. A., & MacCulloch, M. J. (2004). Eye-movements reduce the vividness, emotional valence and electrodermal arousal associated with negative autobiographical memories. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology, 15, 325-345.
• Barrowcliff, A. L., Gray, N. S., MacCulloch, S., Freeman, T. C. A., & MacCulloch, M. J. (2003). Horizontal rhythmical eye-movements consistently diminish the arousal provoked by auditory stimuli. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 42, 289-302.
• Christman, S. D., Propper, R. E., & Brown, T. J. (2006). Increased Interhemispheric Interaction Is Associated With Earlier Offset of Childhood Amnesia. Neuropsychology, 20, 336–345.
• Christman, S. D., Garvey, K. J., Propper, R. E., & Phaneuf, K. A. (2003). Bilateral eye movements enhance the retrieval of episodic memories. Neuropsychology. 17, 221-229.
• Kavanagh, D. J., Freese, S., Andrade, J., & May, J. (2001). Effects of visuospatial tasks on desensitization to emotive memories. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 40, 267-280.
• Kuiken, D., Bears, M., Miall, D., & Smith, L. (2001-2002). Eye movement desensitization reprocessing facilitates attentional orienting. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 21, (1), 3-20.
• Lamprecht, F., Kohnke, C., Lempa, W., Sack, M., Matzke, M., & Munte, T. (2004). Event-related potentials and EMDR treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder. Neuroscience Research, 49, 267-272.
• Lee, C. W., Taylor, G., & Drummond, P. D. (2006). The active ingredient in EMDR: Is it traditional exposure or dual focus of attention? Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 13(2), 97-107.
• Lee, C. W., & Drummond, P. D.. (2007). Effects of eye movement versus therapist instructions on the processing of distressing memories. Journal of Anxiety Disorders.
• Parker A., & Dagnall, N. (2007). Effects of bilateral eye movements on gist based false recognition in the DRM paradigm. Brain and Cognition, 63, 221-225.
• Ruth E. Propper, Jenna Pierce, Mark W. Geisler, Stephen D. Christman, & Nathan Bellorado. (2007). Effect of Bilateral Eye Movements on Frontal Interhemispheric Gamma EEG Coherence: Implications for EMDR Therapy. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 195, 785-788.
• Sharpley, C. F. Montgomery, I. M., & Scalzo, L. A. (1996). Comparative efficacy of EMDR and alternative procedures in reducing the vividness of mental images. Scandinavian Journal of Behaviour Therapy, 25, 37-42.
• Van den Hout, M., Muris, P., Salemink, E., & Kindt, M. (2001). Autobiographical memories become less vivid and emotional after eye movements. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 40, 121-130.

Lmaxfield (talk) 03:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, the issue is that the eye movements are not required for the treatment effect. The situation as you represent is not the way the data stands when it is considered in toto. We also reviewed "therapeutic touch", Reiki and acupuncture. Some forms of the latter were accepted (deep tissue needling), naught else. Subsequent reviews have continued to indicate to the medical panels that EMDR will not achieve funding status. The group looked at the issues of expectancy, persuasion and healing (which is also the title of Jerome Frank's seminal book from the 1960s - may I recommend it), therapist effects, and (you will not like this phrasing) EMDR's pseudo-scientific theory about neurological effects that simply are not verifiable nor in keeping with neurological knowledge. I do not foresee that the decision will be reversed, in fact, it has gained solidity as time has passed and outcomes have been tracked (I am absolutely aware of the this data on an ongoing basis from matched comparison of groups which do accept EMDR. You may by now understand that my exposure to the data is through a number of insurance schemes). It has also appeared that less qualified practitioners turn to manualized and technique oriented methods such as EMDR, in contradistinction to those with other mainstream psychological therapy approaches. The EMDR advocates have also appeared to enthused to the point of evangelism (sorry if that is a little insensitive a term also), and also wanting to use the method (?misapply) with all sorts of other diagnoses. You must also realize that appeals to the authority of the various other organizations you list does neither persuade groups which possess a lot of data, nor provide any sort of evidence for effectiveness. (Appeal to authority being a rhetorical argumentation method.)

So I must say, that this wikipedia article does not manage quite to balance the presentation. Fremte (talk) 03:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I would be really interested to read your review on EMDR, and the reasons why is does not achieve funding status. I am also interested to read research that demonstrates your claim that EMDR is effective when eye movements are not used, as I have not come across any controlled research that has clearly demonstrated this. Sschubert (talk) 06:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with editor Sschubert. - Fremte, since you are basing your non-neutrality position on your review, you need to provide this review to the other editors so that we can evaluate your position, and respond appropriately. Please provide access information. Where is it published? Thank you Lmaxfield (talk) 15:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Intro section is non-neutral

This section could either be shortened and leave the info that says this method works to later where it is already reviewed, or needs to add some few sentences and words to represent the controversy about EMDR. I thus put the banner on the intro section until this is fixed. Respectfully, Fremte (talk) 18:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

POV tag added to page

I noticed that a NPOV tag was added to the page, but there appears to be nothing here on the discussion page outlining why the tag was added. I thought that it was a policy of wikapedia that if such a tag was added to an article then you needed to "at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article. The note should address the problem with enough specificity to allow constructive discussion towards a resolution, such as identifying specific passages, elements, or phrasings that are problematic."

Consensus is not possible, and making this page acceptable to those involved is not possible if the problems with the page are not clearly outlined. Once specific problems are identified, then editors can discuss and resolve them. Is it possible for the person who added the tag to outline the changes they would like to see on the page for the tag to be removed? or is it fair to remove the tag until the probems are outlined on this page? Sschubert (talk) 06:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand that EMDR is a topic on which there are conflicting points of view and ongoing debates and controversy, however the NPOV tag has been removed from this page on the grounds that no clear exlanation has been put forward on this talk page that highlights exactly which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Also no suggestions have been made by the editor who added the tag as to how one can improve the article. It goes against Wikapedia's NPOV policy to add a tag to a page without initiating such discussion. I hope these reasons for removing the tag are acceptable to other editors. Sschubert (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Was Shapiro the original developer?

The following comment was removed as the statement was not referenced: "John Grinder has claimed that he gave the technique to Shapiro after she asked him for help with a victim of rape." 165.118.1.50 (talk) 09:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Two mechanism sections?

Hey, anyone who is paying attention to this page: there are two sections labeled "Mechanism". Surely this needs to be fixed. If you could help with that, that'd be awesome. (By the way, there really ought to be a "History" section in this article, no?). Cheers, Doctormatt (talk) 06:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization

Please weigh in on the general discussion of capitalization of therapeutic systems – "Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing" vs. "eye movement desensitization and reprocessing" at the psychology WikiProject. /skagedal 09:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Evidence discussion

The following was moved from Talk:Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing/Comments, which is for comments on article review, not general discussion, which belongs here /skagedal 22:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Just going over some of the references that purportedly support EMDR as an efficacious therapy, even a superior therapy to cog. behavioral thereapy, desensitization therapy, and pharmacotherapy. Every article I bring up seems to say the opposite. I'm a little confused. Is this an advertisement page for EMDR? The science is not very good. Here for example, is what reference 12 says about the therapy: "No controlled studies of psychodynamic psychotherapy, eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR), or hypnosis have been conducted that would establish data-based evidence of their efficacy as an early or preventive intervention for ASD or PTSD." This reference was from the American Psychiatric Association guidelines on PTSD, and was cited in a statement by the author that EMDR was SUPERIOR to other treatments. Am I missing something here? Sandy Marssociety 23:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a treatment that is strongly recommended for use in the treatment of trauma by some of the major researchers in the field, such as Van der Kolk and Briere (See, for example, Principles of Trauma Treatment, edited by Biere & Scott, 2006 or the White Paper on Complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder by the National Trauma Center. DPeterson 00:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

There is some misunderstanding here. There is a difference between (1) treating people who have been diagnosed with PTSD to reduce/eliminate their symptoms and (2) treating people who have been exposed to trauma to prevent them from developing PTSD. It is true that EMDR has not been tested to see if it will stop the development of PTSD in people who are exposed to trauma. However, there are more than 16 randomized clinical trials that have investigated EMDR’s effectiveness in the treatment of PTSD. Almost all found that EMDR is very effective in reducing/eliminating symptoms of PTSD for people already diagnosed with that disorder. Lmaxfield (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

But the usefulness of the eye movements are apparently not seperated from the other parts of the therapy. EMDR may well be effective but not because of the eye movements, but due to EMDR being a desensitization therapy. Both the perspective that eye movements are (1) needed, and, (2) not needed, for the therapy to be effective must be present in the article for a balanced presentation per WP:NPOV policy. Fremte (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You are confusing two different constructs -- mechanisms of action and efficacy. We don't even know the mechanisms of action in CBT therapies, or in imaginal exposure. Research has yet to specify why and how any psychotherapy works. With EMDR, all the research studies that found elimination of PTSD diagnosis used eye movements. You cannot say that EMDR-without-eye-movements would achieve the same result because this is not known. The research has not been done. You cannot make statements that are not supported by research. You can say that the use of eye movements is controversial, but not that EMDR would achieve the same effects without them. Neither can you say that the mechanism of action is desensitization. That is a theoretical statement, not a proven statement. Lmaxfield (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a concern here which is being peripherally addressed: If one cannot really prove the efficacy of any mechanism of psychotherapy, what sense is there in putting forth theories and opinions in that regard, especially if any criticism of such theories simply leads back to an assertion that such criticisms are unfounded? I grow increasingly weary of the (still) physics-envy-saturation of our field. I would like to see more rational and realistic approaches to addressing the practical effects of our considerations, rather than considerations on the practical effects of our treatments. Do you follow? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.1.180 (talk) 09:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move should be uncontroversial. Parsecboy (talk) 13:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I request that this is moved to Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing, per MOS:CAPS and discussion here. Reliable sources do not seem to capitalize it, for example the authoritative Bergin and Garfield's Handbook on Psychotherapy and Behavior Change, 5th ed (ISBN 978-0-471-37755-9) and several journals in the field: Journal of Clinical Psychiatry (PMID 17284128), Psychiatry Research (PMID 18336919), Journal of Traumatic Stress (PMID 16568469, however in 2005: PMID 16382428), Journal of Anxiety Disorders (PMID 18314305), etc... /skagedal 22:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

additions to the introductory paragraph made without discussion

This article on EMDR has developed following extensive discussions regarding the status, effectiveness, and processes involved in EMDR. The following statement appears to have been added to the article without initiating a discussion or offering an explanation for statement on this page: "However, the effectiveness of the mechanisms behind EMDR has been questioned, with most leading researchers concluding that cognitive restructuring (which is common in most therapies for PTSD), rather than the eye movements, are responsible for change. It is generally believed that it works because of the exposure therapy it provides, as well as a robust placebo effect." This statement is also not referenced, thus, the statement has removed from the introduction paragraph. Past discussions have led to the development of a controversies section on the EMDR page. I suggest this comment may be more appropriate in this section, if referenced appropriately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sschubert (talk • contribs) 15:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Mechanism sections

Two section with the same name.. Let's unify or?--151.50.154.167 (talk) 09:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS NPOV

From a quick skim of the article, it looks like it could use work per WP:MEDRS. I'll give more details after I've looked over the article and refs more thoroughly. --Ronz (talk) 00:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I remove this pilot study as a ref: --Ronz (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Starting a list of the systemic reviews that we have:

1. Bisson et al (2007)

--Ronz (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Other analysis:

• bmj.com analysis Very useful for both analysis and refs. --Ronz (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
• Aetna's policy Their refs could be useful. --Ronz (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
• WebMD's summary Could be useful as a summary. --Ronz (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

This is going to be difficult without access to articles. While I'm tempted to just start stripping the individual studies from the article that are not supported by the review or other analyses, that would probably be too heavy handed. Still, it looks like the NPOV problems can be resolved by simply following MEDRS. Individual studies are being used too often as references, being given too much weight, and are being used to counter other information. --Ronz (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd guess that the WP:SPAs editing this article are familiar with research publications that emphasizes primary sources and original research. Misplaced Pages article, in contrast, must be based upon secondary sources and avoid original research. Again, I think that MEDRS should be enough to resolve these problems. --Ronz (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I have a copy of every article listed on this page. If you are after copies of the articles let me know and I can send them through. You mentioned that you would look at the refs more throughly - how can you do this without access to the articles? I can e-mail them through if you like. I am unsure of the reason you removed Boudwyns 1993. If you remove references please state why they are removed. and yes .... simply stripping the studies is definately heavy handed, especially if you don't have access to read the studies you plan to remove!

There is still no explanation as to why the NPOV tag is added to the page here. Again please state exactly why the NPOV tag has been added to this page.Sschubert (talk) 11:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I consider the comments above to be an explanation. If you'd like further clarification, simply ask for it. --Ronz (talk) 15:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I would like further clarification, and have been asking for further clarification for quite a while now (see our past discussions). You began by appearing to question the reliability of the sources (which you state that you do not have access to, thus have not read), but are now appearing to dispute the neutrality of the page? Which is it, as I believe that you are tagging the page with an inappropriate tag. Overall, I am finding it difficult to discuss and resolve the problems you have with the page, as I am still unclear on the specific issues you have with the page. Alterantively, What will it take to have the tag removed?

I have been clearly placing my reasons for removing the tag from the page, and I still do not see an adequate explanation on this page as to why the tag was added. Overall, in removal of the tag I have been following Wikapedia's guidelines that state:

• "Especially in the case of a tag such as NPOV, complaints left at a talkpage need to be actionable, so that editors can attempt to address them. It is not helpful to say simply "The article is biased." Instead, some details should be given to help other editors understand what needs to be fixed or discussed."
• Removing tags: "Any editor who sees a tag, but does not see any problem with the article, and who does not see any detailed complaint on the talk page, may remove the tag. It may be wise to place a note on the talk page explaining the removal."
• "Adding and removing tags without discussion is not helpful, and can be seen as disruptive. Where there is disagreement, both sides should attempt to discuss the situation."
• Placing a tag such as an NVOP tag on the page without clearly stating why is disruptive and considered vandalism.

You have also asked for a list of systemic reviews so that the article meets secondary sources. There are many reviews and metaanalyses on EMDR within the scientific literature:

1. Seidler & Wegner (2006)
2. Waller, Spates & Mulick (2000)
3. Van Etten & Taylor (1998)
4. Sherman (1998)
5. Davidson & Parker (2001)
6. Sack, Lemos & Lamprecht (2001)
7. Bradley, Greene, Russ, Dultra & Westen (2005)
8. Bisson et al (2007)

There are also many international clinical practice guidelines based on reviews of the evidence for EMDR in treating PTSD such as:

• Foa, E. B., Keane, T. M., Friedman, M. J., & Cohen, J. A. (Eds.). (2009). Effective treatments for PTSD: Practice guidelines from the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies (2nd ed.).New York: Guilford Press.
• National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). (2005). Post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD: The management of adults and children in primary and secondary care. London: NICE Guidelines. http://guidance.nice.org.uk/CG26
• Clinical Resource Efficiency Support Team (CREST). (2003). The management of post traumatic stress disorder in adults. Belfast: Clinical Resource Efficiency Team of the Northern Ireland Department of Health, Social Service and Public Safety.
• Institut national de la santé et de la recherche médicale (France) (INSERM). (2004). Psychothérapie, trois approches évaluées . Paris: French National Institute of Health and Medical Research.

It would be more useful to go through the reviews and meta-analyses that currently exist in the scientific literature, rather than to search through reference lists that appear on odd webpages. Sschubert (talk) 01:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all the refs.

First thing first - What would you like further clarification on? Stop with the quotes, and instead follow them yourself. You've given me nothing that's actionable. I believe what I've given is actionable. If you disagree, tell me why so I can respond. --Ronz (talk) 02:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Why is it that you have placed the NPOV tag on the page? 124.169.99.245 (talk) 10:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

"Individual studies are used being too often as references, being given too much weight, and are being used to counter other information." "Still, it looks like the NPOV problems can be resolved by simply following MEDRS. Individual studies are being too often as references, being given too much weight, and are being used to counter other information." See WP:PSTS, WP:UNDUE, and WP:MEDRS --Ronz (talk) 14:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I have just noticed that the NPOV tag is still on the page without any evidence of the dispute still being rectified. What sections in particular contains too many individual studies? THe introduction and description of therapy section seem ok, and the emperical evidence section - it is appropriate here to cite the emperical evidence. THere is an entire special edition of the Journal of EMDR that has specifically been dedicated to reviewing the evidence in many different areas relating to EMDR. I would be happy to add some more references of review papers to sections you feel may be too weighted by individual studies. From a quick look over the article there appears to be many meta-analyses, review articles and books cited. I think one thing to remember about EMDR is that although it is evidenced based and has been for a long time for PTSD, how the therapy works is still a point of controversy (as it is with any therapy), and much research in this area is quite new. I think the article is quite good because it does appear to contain very up to date information for readers. New pieces of scientific information are hard to cite with secondary sources simply because the evidence is new! I would not remove new evidence from the page simply because the information cannot be cited by a secondary source at this point in time. Doing that would be detrimental to the page. Would adding more review papers to the areas you feel weighted by individual studies be enough to resolve the dispute and remove the NPOV tage from the entire page? Or maybe just place to tag over the sections neeeded fixing rather than the whole page. Geraldzeng (talk) 03:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The lede is one such section.

Note that the number of studies cited isn't the full problem. The weight we give them is also a problem. --Ronz (talk) 15:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, but what do you mean by the lede? Do you mean the opening paragraph? what particular which section is weighted too much by individual studies? By adding review articles the weight given to individual studies would be lessened. I would like to help resolve the NPOV issue and I am willing to work on sections you think need fixing. could you please outline specifically which sections and I will work on this. Geraldzeng (talk) 00:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

For the opening paragraph would you like review papers or meta-analyses cited for these sentences in particular: "Clinical trials have been conducted to assess EMDR's efficacy in the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) . In some studies it has been shown to be equivalent to cognitive behavioral therapy and exposure therapies. Although some clinicians may use EMDR for various problems, its research support is primarily for disorders stemming from distressing life experiences."

I just had a quick look to fix the opening paragraph, and to avoid being repetative in the article, the very next paragraph after the intro has 9 or 10 review papers cited that have reviewed the studies in the opening paragraph. references 13-21 are all either review articles, meta-analoyses or international treatment guidelines, the following section could be moved to the lead paragraph and removed from the beginning of the next section to remove weight from the individual studies that are cited there? I will move the section as described and await your response. Section moved: "Although EMDR is established as an evidence-based treatment for PTSD , there are two main perspectives on EMDR therapy: First, Shapiro proposed that although a number of different processes underlie EMDR, the eye movements add to the therapy's effectivness by evoking neurological and physiological changes that may aid in the processing of the trauma memories being treated; The other perspective is that the eye movements are an epiphenomenon, unnecessary, and that EMDR is simply a form of desensitization." Geraldzeng (talk) 00:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I see that you undid my edit. Without an explanation from you I guess that you didn't think my suggestion is appropriate? By moving the above paragraph it does appear to fit with my understanding of WP LEDE. Moving materail is not duplicating the information, I moved it to save adding the review/secondary references twice immediadetly after each other. From looking at previous discussions you seem to be quite hesitant to talk through suggestions or make specific suggested changes resolve the NPOV dispute to your liking - NPOV is a strong and serious tag to place on an entire page. I want to help rectifying the page, but without knowing how exactly it makes this job hard. Can you outline what you want to see on the page or removed from the page. I am happy to remove weight from individual studies and give more weight to secondary sources, but I do not want to spend time doing this if it still is not enough to remove the tag? Is removing weight from individual studies (by adding or replacing the references with secondary sources) in the lead paragraph enough to resolve this NPOV dispute? Kindly. Geraldzeng (talk) 03:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I thought I had written a quick note here.

I don't understand how moving material into the lede resolves anything at all.

I'd like to get other opinions on how to proceed with this article. I'm not going to rewrite it myself, but I think it needs a rewrite per MEDRS. I've started looking for help by posting to the Fringe Theory Noticeboard.

I'm also going to continue working on the list of reviews. --Ronz (talk) 04:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, the lede section is the last area to work on given it has to summarize the entire article. It doesn't summarize the article properly now, but I think it would be a waste of time to put time into it until MEDRS has been applied to the rest of the article. --Ronz (talk) 18:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

EMDR is not a fringe theory. It is not a psudoscience. THe article does not need a rewrite - more secondary reference yes, maybe. As I mentioned a while age, I am happy to e-mail a complete list of reviews, meta-analyses, book chapters (secondary sources) through to you to add to your list. and again, I am also happy to incorporate these into the article to give individual studies less weight - this is your main concern is it not? Sschubert (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

No offense, but I'm going to continue to work on getting the article rewritten per MEDRS. --Ronz (talk) 18:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

While there are reliable sources suggesting some aspects of EMDR are pseudoscience, I think it's best to keep the focus on MEDRS. I've requested help at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Psychology#Application_of_WP:MEDRS_to_EMDR. --Ronz (talk) 02:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

No offense taken. But you mistakenly have said in your above request to WP:MERS that you have been trying to get authors of the page to correct the page according to WP:MERS. There are two authors that have been trying to satisfy your requests with no avail. You have two authors willing to work on the article, and there have clearly been attempts to fix the article to your liking. You have suggested in your request to WP:MERS that the entire page needs a rewrite. Please state how? And I would be interested in your reliable sources suggesting that EMDR is a pseudoscience. Could you send through the references please? Sschubert (talk) 08:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Given your WP:COI, I'd rather find others to work on this that are more open to applying WP:MEDRS, rather than defending their personal pov. --Ronz (talk) 16:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ronz. However, I am not aware I have any COI. I am a university student whose opinion is based on scientific literature, not personal opinion. Sschubert (talk) 07:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Here on Misplaced Pages, we follow WP:MEDRS when determining how to prioritize research. In university settings they focus on the most recent research, the most promising for research areas for funding, and the personal interests of the professors and lecturers. That perspective is not compatible with MEDRS and WP:UNDUE, and tends toward WP:OR.

"A Misplaced Pages conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Misplaced Pages, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor." - WP:COI --Ronz (talk) 15:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Since it's been over two weeks without response from WP:PSY, I've asked for help at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Application_of_WP:MEDRS_to_EMDR, which was recommended at WT:MEDRS. --Ronz (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what others think, but sorry Ronz, I tend to disagree with you. Just beacuse I am a PhD student does not create a COI, and does not mean that I am unable to write according to WP:MERS. If people who are affiliated with universities could not write on wikapedia there would be no EMDR page! or many other wikapedia pages for that matter. Being afflillated with a university at least allows me access to all the references to this page, and being a PhD student then tends to indicate that I have actually read the sources you are questioning. You have said that do not have access to the sources, yet you are questioning the references on the page. Sorry, Ronz, but I am inerested in this page, the sceince in this field, and plan to continue to contribute the best way I can. Sschubert (talk) 01:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you send through the reliable sources you referred to suggesting that EMDR is a pseudoscience? If they are reliable sources then they should appear on the page. 165.118.1.51 (talk) 08:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Please restate the issue simply

It's just possible that the reason third opinions haven't been forthcoming is that other editors are having difficulty seeing what the dispute is in all the verbiage above. If the issue is just that references need to be improved, there should be nobody who will dispute the replacement of poor references with better ones. I'd suggest starting by identifying the primary sources. I usually approach that just by putting "(primary source)" just before </ref> if I don't have a suitable recent review handy to replace it. If the dispute is over something more subtle, please spell it out simply. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at the article and this dispute.

Simply, the article doesn't follow MEDRS. I've been trying to put together a list of what MEDRS terms "ideal sources." I have at least a partial list of such sources. A simple check of the current references in the article shows that these ideal sources are not being properly used nor respected per MEDRS. They are given low prominence, when instead they should be given the highest.

A review of this talk page and its archive shows that there have been numerous pov disputes here, most with accusations of COI problems. I've not looked into these past disputes in detail, hoping that instead we can simply follow MEDRS. --Ronz (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

If that's all the problem is, there is no serious dispute. Just get on with replacing low-quality sources with better ones. It doesn't need protracted discussion.LeadSongDog come howl! 19:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not a matter of simply replacing sources. It's a matter of giving the proper sources the proper prominence. That means removing or otherwise de-emphasizing material only based upon the poorer sources, and expanding and highlighting material based upon MEDRS's "ideal sources." --Ronz (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, there's no serious dispute. WP:UNDUE speaks to the topic. The article should reflect the information expressed in the best quality sources available on the topic, in approximate proportion to the prevalance of those sources. Where there is serious academic disagreement (as opposed to WP:FRINGE), the differences should be made clear to the reader along with the relevant arguments, again, proportionate to the sources. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and hope the other editors here will as well. --Ronz (talk) 22:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, this is a simply matter. if the sections and sentences that do not meet MP:MERS are clearly outlined, then authors can work on making the references more appropriate, thus resolving the NVOP tag. 165.118.1.51 (talk) 08:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

EXTERNAL LINKS

According to Wikapedia's guidelines on external links, the links listed on each page should be kept to a minimum, they should be meritable, and sites should be avoided if they give undue weight to certain points of view and/or are non-neutral in content. For this reason I have removed the following links until further discussion takes place between editors of the page: 1. The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice 2. Eye Movement Desensitization Reprocessing (EMDR): Science or Pseudoscience? - By Bunmi O. Olatunji 3. Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing: A Review of the Efficacy of EMDR in the Treatment of PTSD - Lakehead University, Canadian Psychology Department 4. EMDR Treatment: Less Than Meets the Eye? Scott O. Lilienfeld, Ph.D. Article was originally published the Jan/Feb 1996 issue of the Skeptical Inquirer.

These sites are not links to official websites related to the page's topic, nor are they peer reviewed sites, and some of the content is inaccurately or poorly referenced. The sites removed also do not appear to be contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to EMDR. What the sites do appear to contain is information on EMDR that could otherwise be incorporated and integrated into the Misplaced Pages page itself, hence the removal of the links.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sschubert (talk • contribs) 09:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment. The links you left are all to organizations, which I've now removed as being promotional and off-topic (one was a dead link).

I've restored the links you note above, fixing the one that was no longer working. All appear on topic. I share your concern that they all have shared perspectives, but this fits my WP:MEDRS concerns above. --Ronz (talk) 17:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Specifically, I removed

• EMDR International Association (EMDRIA)
• EMDR European Association, Inc.
• National Institute for Health & Clinical Excellence UK
• EMDR Scotland

--Ronz (talk) 14:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:MEDRS "it is vital that biomedical information in articles be based on reliable published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge." The links previously removed and placed on this page for discussion about their appropriateness do not fit with Wikapeida guidelines on reliable sources, nor do they fit with Wikapedias guidelines on appropriate external links Misplaced Pages:External links. According to Wikapedia what should be linked is:

"1.Misplaced Pages articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any.

3.Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Misplaced Pages article due to copyright issues, amount of detail, ... or other reasons."

And according to Wikapedia, what links should be avoided include: "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints which such sites are presenting."

The links that were previously removed from the page do not provide readers of wikapedia with up to date, accurate information on the topic, hence risk the reader being mislead, the pages are non-neutral, and the pages contain content that for no reason (i.e. there are no copy right issues) cannot be integrated into the wikapedia page itself, and if the information was integrated into the page it would possibly add to the depth and accuracy of the page. To sum, the links previously removed were not reliable, up to date sources according to WP:MEDRS, thus until further discussion, I have removed the links once more. The links removed were:

1. the link to the article by Rosen & Lohr (1997). This article contains only 4 references, with the most recent being 1996 (14 years old). There is a vast amount of published, peer reviewed scientific research since this was written. Thus the article may be misleading, and on the whole, it contains information that can be incorporated into the page.

2. the link to, Eye Movement Desensitization Reprocessing (EMDR): Science or Pseudoscience? - By Bunmi O. Olatunji. This link is currently not working, however from memory, the article was also out of date, with all references being over a decade old. I also recall the page containing a poor, inadequate, and inaccurate description of the therapy process, and attempts to describe the mechanisms underlying EMDR without any reference to scientific research. I also believe the page stated that EMDR was not an evidence based therapy, which is misleading to wikapedia readers, as since the article was written, EMDR has been clearly estabilished internationally as an evidenced-based treatment for PTSD.

3. the link to the article, EMDR Treatment: Less Than Meets the Eye? by Scott O. Lilienfeld, Ph.D. This article was written in Jan/Feb 1996, with the latest reference to literature being 1995 (15 years old). This article also states “Moreover, because EMDR has not been clearly shown to be beneficial for the condition for which it was originally developed, namely PTSD,”. This may have been appropriate to state in 1996, but again is misleading for readers of the current page. The article puts forward arguments that were vaild at the time of writing, but again the page does not provide wikapedia readers with up to date, accurate information on EMDR, and it would be more beneficial for wikapedia readers if points of view presented in the article were incorparated into the EMDR page itself with reference to more recent scientific research.

I agree with the removal of the links to EMDR bodies (i.e. Scotland and Europe) as links should be kept to a minimum, and having such links would warrant other links to other EMDR associations (i.e EMDR Asia, EMDR Australia, EMDR Belgium, EMDR France, etc.). I also agree with the removal of the link to NICE, as there is reference to the EMDR/PTSD review by NICE in the reference section of the page. However, according to my understanding of Wikapedia's guidelines of external links, the link to the organisation's official stie or web page is appropriate, thus the link has been restored to EMDR's official site, the EMDR international Association, until further discussion takes place. Sschubert (talk) 04:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Basically, you're arguing that information should be removed if you don't think it is up to date. This is nonsense, and would prevent us from having an article at all.

I fixed the Bunmi O. Olatunji link correctly this time. Thanks for catching my mistake.

This article is not about an organization, so WP:ELOFFICIAL doesn't apply. --Ronz (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I guess that the information on these links are not exactly up to date, is one of my points (and is a valid, rather than nonsense point according to WP:MEDRS request to "use up-to-date information" section). But, I think the main point that I would like ot make is that the page, and readers of the page would benefit if the information contained in the links be incorporated into the page itself, and that the points of view presented in these links would benefit from refering to more recent scientific evidence to support claims. Or can you see any reason why comments within these articles cannot be incorporated into the page? In addition, the point about informaiton being out of date is quite an important point as such information may mislead readers who come to read this page hoping to find accurate information about the topic. Many of the claims put forward in these links are no longer valid or correct as a great deal of scientific research investigating the efficacy and underlying mechanisms of EMDR has taken place in the past 15 years. Also, as links on Wikapedia pages should be kept to a minimum, lets at least link pages that contain the most recent information about what we know and don't know about EMDR, pages that are at least less than a decade old, and are pages that conform with wikapedia's neutral point of view policy. That leads to my last point I have failed to mention so far, which is that the exteranl link pages appear to be quite value laden and present a non neutral point of view WP: Neutral point of view. It seems that we have quite different views on this matter, and although I am enjoying our discussions back and forth, it seems that we are unable to reconcile this dispute. I hope it is ok, but I will remove the links, and I am requesting the opinions from other editors to help us resolve the decisions about what external links are most suitable to include on the page. Sschubert (talk) 12:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I have left the one link that I believe we both agree is an appropriate link. I gather this as neither of us has removed the link during our discussion. Sschubert (talk) 12:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You removed:

• The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice
• Eye Movement Desensitization Reprocessing (EMDR): Science or Pseudoscience? - By Bunmi O. Olatunji
• EMDR Treatment: Less Than Meets the Eye? Scott O. Lilienfeld, Ph.D. Article was originally published the Jan/Feb 1996 issue of the Skeptical Inquirer.

--Ronz (talk) 16:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't clear. I'm objecting to removal based upon the unsupported assertion that the information is out of date. This violates NPOV when all the information removed presents similar viewpoints.

At this point WP:THIRD (since the 124.148.218.241 is you) or WP:ELN would be useful for getting others' opinions. --Ronz (talk) 16:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I feel that you may be missing my main point. That the information is out of date is not my main point. I state again, that my main point is that the information contained in these pages should be incorporated into the page itself, so that the page itself presents a balanced point of view. By your argument, the page presents one point of view, and these articles present another - that would mean that the page itself violates NVOP. There is a "controversy" section on the page in which different points of view are stated, thus the information could be incorporated into this section - as opposed to different points of view being presented in links that violate NPOV. I look forward the opionions of others. (and sorry, I am not sure what you mean by "the 124.148.218.241 is you". Sschubert (talk) 03:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that they present a different point of view.

I agree that they should be incorporated into the article. Until they are, they can be listed as external links. --Ronz (talk) 17:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It is nice to see that we agree on something!! However, please note that I have respected your views and opinions and have not replaced the links I feel should appear on the page until our disagreement is resolved. It is wikapedias policy that prior to placing information on the page that authors agree on the content (hence I have not replaced the links I feel are ok because you diasgree). According to wikapedia's guidelines the content sould be removed until our disagreement about the external links be resolved. In addition, they should not appear, as I have mentioned before, on the grounds that they violate WP:NPOV. If you feel the information is so vitally important to create an external link to the page, simply incorporate the information into the page as you see fit. So again I will remove the links, and politely request that they remain a point of discussion, and am requesting the opinions from other editors to help us resolve the decisions about what external links are most suitable to include on the page.Sschubert (talk) 03:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Hi, guys. Noticed your third opinion request on the board was getting aged, so thought I'd try my hand at my first "third opinion" (just requested one myself, so might as well be a giver as well as a taker). It appears as if you're near a resolution already, but to get you the rest of the way and clear it off the third-opinion board, after going through the above, my third opinion on the issue is that I agree with Sschubert. I find Sschubert's initial statement and follow-ups regarding the conflicts that said external links have with existing medical-knowledge and external-link policies to be the more convincing of the two positions. As Sschubert points out, if the article without the removed links is so weighted that it has bias problems, adding appropriate cited information regarding the links' point of view to the page's controversy section would be appropriate. But it seems as if what Ronz suggests is to almost have the external links be a "rough draft" for the different opinion until it's written (I'm referencing the "until they are" statement that Ronz makes), and that's not the purpose of an article, and their presence there in the meantime would violate the various guidelines cited in Sschubert's initial statement. — WCityMike 07:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. We've agreed that the links should be included as references. As far as I'm concerned, there's no reason then not to include them as external links until they've been added as references.

The NPOV concerns are real, but misplaced. As I pointed out before this dispute began, the article needs extensive changes per WP:MEDRS. Removing specific viewpoints, because of allegations of bias, is the opposite of NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

How are the NPOV points misplaced? Also, how does the article need extensive changes? Which sources cited need revision as per WP:MEDRS. Please note that I have not removed any specific view points from the page itself. I have only removed external links that violate NPOV. The page itself in my opinion does not violate NPOV. If you are to put an NPOV on the page you need to state exactly how the article violates NPOV so that the issues can be addressed, like they have been in previous discussions between authors of the page.

Wikapedia's guidelines WP:NPOV disputeon tagging a page with NPOV states Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, Misplaced Pages:No original research and Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort.

So I ask that you please specify what it is that you would like to appear on the page, as at this point you have not specified what the specific content is that you feel is in the articles but not on the page. I have outlined my views and issues in detail thus far. Thus, as previously stated I am continuing torequest the opinions from other editors to help us resolve the decisions about what external links are most suitable to include on the page, and I have removed the NVOP tag until the specific reason for the tag has been outlined so that these can be discussed between also.

Also please note that as you, Ronz, requested the WP:THIRD, please read the response. As among the valid and thoughtful response, WCityMike states that the inclusion of the links on the page "violates various guidelines" that I have previously cited. thank you WCityMike for taking the time to response to the WP:THIRD request. Sschubert (talk) 05:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I have also just noticed that a new external link has appeared. the link being * EMDR: Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (WebMD). This is also a web page that is not a reliable source. The majority (almost all) of the statements in the article are not referenced, and I cannot see any infomation in this web page (note that this link is not even a published scientific article) that does not appear in the page itself or adds to the quality of the page. Again, Wikapedia guidelines state "it is not Misplaced Pages's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic, and "the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum". There are thousands of web pages that discuss EMDR that could be linked. However, Wikapedia pages are not meant to contain lists of external links and pages are not meant to be directories to related web pages. thus this link is also removed until further discussion takes place. Sschubert (talk) 06:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you appear to be ignoring what I've written. --Ronz (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what we mean by "reliable sources" here on Misplaced Pages. See WP:RS. --Ronz (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I am attending to what you are writing, however you do not appear to be answering my questions? i.e. what is it that you would like to appear on the page? How are "The NPOV concerns are real, but misplaced", and What is it about the page that violates NPOV? You need to state, according to wikapedia guidelines, how the page violates NPOV prior to adding a tag to the page. How can a NPOV dispute debate be discussed and resolved between authors if it is not clear as to why the tag was added? I have read the guidelines on reliable sources i.e.WP:MEDRS and it states "Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in reliable, published sources are covered; see Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view....Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made...Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." When you first mentioned that this page needs to be extensively edited according to WP:MEDRS I took a great deal of time and checked that only published, peer reviewed, scientific articles were used as references, and checked that the articles were correctly supporting the claims being made. This took many hours. At no point am I aware of any specific view point being removed from the page, and the article, as you can see from the reference list, includes opinions and authors with different views on EMDR, and the page includes a controversy section where different points of view are stated (and can be edited and updated at any stage).

I am doing my best to try to understand your issues with the page's content, but you need to specifically state what you would like included or taken out if you feel that the page is violating NPOV. Until then a tag cannot be added (again see WP:NPOV dispute on guidelines for tagging a page with NPOV). Sschubert (talk) 10:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

reference removed

The following quote/reference/and external link was removed from the controversy section as the reference is from a web page, it is an opinion, and is not drawn from a scientific or peer reviewed source: “due in part to its having been "aggressively marketed before much research had been conducted on it". reference: Jim Hopper of Harvard University writes: "EMDR was aggressively marketed before much research had been conducted on it, with some fairly extreme statements about its ability to 'cure' PTSD in a few sessions, and without significant effort to explain how it works in terms of widely accepted academic theories. Thus it was inevitable that EMDR would be criticized (and at times viciously attacked) by some academic researchers – an outcome easily understood by anyone familiar with academic politics and the tendencies for conflict between therapists and researchers in the field of clinical psychology." Hopper, Jim. "Child Abuse: Statistics, Research and Resources" Updated 10/6/2008, URL retrieved 07 Aug 2009” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sschubert (talk • contribs) 10:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Given his expertise, I think this ref could be restored. --Ronz (talk) 17:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The question is not about his expertise, but whether the quote is taken from a reliable published source. The quote appears to also be used out of context.

N:POV tag

Please stop placing an NVOP tag on the entire page without clearly stating why the tag is there. There is no way of resolving the NVOP dispute without having your reasons stated on the page so that authors can discuss and amend the page so that in your view it does not violate NPOV. Please see wikapedia guidelines for tagging a page, i.e. Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, Misplaced Pages:No original research and Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort. 124.169.99.245 (talk) 23:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The tag links to Talk:Eye_movement_desensitization_and_reprocessing#WP:MEDRS_NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 00:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The statements "Based on the evidence of randomised controlled research trials both the practice guidelines of the American Psychiatric Association and the Department of Veterans Affairs and Defense have placed EMDR in the highest category of effectiveness and research support in the treatment of trauma. This status is reflected in a number of international guidelines where EMDR is a recommended treatment for trauma" in the section Empirical evidence are not borne out by the seven studies cited.

I admit I have read only the first two of the studies, but they both say the evidence is inconclusive with limited applicable evidence and less effective than other therapies in some cases. As a non-involved editor (I was looking for information about the therapy for personal reasons), this article appears to violate WP:NPOV and should probably go to the noticeboard based on the above statements alone. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

List of reviews

1. Bisson et al (2007)
2. Seidler & Wagner (2006)
3. Bradley, Greene, Russ, Dultra & Westen (2005)
4. Davidson & Parker (2001)
5. Sack, Lemos & Lamprecht (2001) - not referenced in article
6. Waller, Spates & Mulick (2000) - not referenced in article
7. Van Etten & Taylor (1998)
8. Sherman (1998) - not referenced in article

I've copied the list from Sschubert (01:32, 8 May 2010), ordering it in reverse chronological order for the time being. I've not verified them at this point. --Ronz (talk) 04:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Verified except for the ones I've marked as not referenced. --Ronz (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

List of other analyses

• bmj.com analysis
• Aetna's policy
• WebMD's summary

Copied from the list I started earlier (started 15:47, 4 May 2010) --Ronz (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

1. Lee, C.W. Analysis of critical components and processes in treatment of trauma memories with EMDR. in EMDRIA 2005. Seattle USA: EMDRIA.
2. Rosenthal, R. and M.R. DiMatteo, Meta analysis: Recent developments in quantitative methods for literature reviews. Annual Review of Psychology, 2001. 52: p. 59-82.
3. Servan-Schreiber, D., Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing: Is Psychiatry Missing the Point? Psychiatric Times, 2000. XVII(7): p. 36-40.
4. Cite error: The named reference pmid8959423 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
5. Kavanagh, D.J., et al., Effects of visuospatial tasks on desensitization to emotive memories. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 2001. 40(3): p. 267-280.
6. van den Hout, M., et al., Autobiographical memories become less vivid and emotional after eye movements. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 2001. 40(2): p. 121-130.
7. ^ Andrade J, Kavanagh D, Baddeley A (1997). "Eye-movements and visual imagery: a working memory approach to the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder". The British journal of clinical psychology / the British Psychological Society. 36 ( Pt 2): 209–23. PMID 9167862.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
8. Christman, S.D., et al., Bilateral eye movements enhance the retrieval of episodic memories. Neuropsychology, 2003. 17(2): p. 221-229.
9. Lee, C.W. Analysis of critical components and processes in treatment of trauma memories with EMDR. in EMDRIA 2005. Seattle USA: EMDRIA.
10. Barrowcliff, A.L., et al., Eye-movements reduce the vividness, emotional valence and electrodermal arousal associated with negative autobiographical memories. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 2004. 15(2): p. 325-345.
11. Boudewyns, P.A. (1993). "Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing: A treatment outcome pilot study". The Behavior Therapist. 16: 30–33. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
12. Cite error: The named reference APA04 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
13. Cite error: The named reference DVADD04 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

• NA-Class psychology pages
• NA-importance psychology pages
• WikiProject Psychology articles