Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing versus cognitive-behavioral therapy for adult posttraumatic stress disorder: systematic review and meta-analysis

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a relatively common mental disorder, with an estimated lifetime prevalence of ∼5.7%. Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) are the most often studied and most effective psychotherapies for PTSD. However, ev...

Celý popis

Uložené v:
Podrobná bibliografia
Vydané v:The journal of nervous and mental disease Ročník 203; číslo 6; s. 443
Hlavní autori: Chen, Ling, Zhang, Guiqing, Hu, Min, Liang, Xia
Médium: Journal Article
Jazyk:English
Vydavateľské údaje: United States 01.06.2015
Predmet:
ISSN:1539-736X, 1539-736X
On-line prístup:Zistit podrobnosti o prístupe
Tagy: Pridať tag
Žiadne tagy, Buďte prvý, kto otaguje tento záznam!
Popis
Shrnutí:Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a relatively common mental disorder, with an estimated lifetime prevalence of ∼5.7%. Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) are the most often studied and most effective psychotherapies for PTSD. However, evidence is inadequate to conclude which treatment is superior. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to confirm the effectiveness of EMDR compared to CBT for adult PTSD. We searched Medline, PubMed, Ebsco, Proquest, and Cochrane (1989-2013) to identify relevant randomized control trials comparing EMDR and CBT for PTSD. We included 11 studies (N = 424). Although all the studies had methodological limitations, meta-analyses for total PTSD scores revealed that EMDR was slightly superior to CBT. Cumulative meta-analysis confirmed this and a meta-analysis for subscale scores of PTSD symptoms indicated that EMDR was better for decreased intrusion and arousal severity compared to CBT. Avoidance was not significantly different between groups. EMDR may be more suitable than CBT for PTSD patients with prominent intrusion or arousal symptoms. However, the limited number and poor quality of the original studies included suggest caution when drawing final conclusions.
Bibliografia:ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-1
ObjectType-Review-3
content type line 23
ObjectType-Undefined-4
ISSN:1539-736X
1539-736X
DOI:10.1097/NMD.0000000000000306