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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The journal of nervous and mental disease Vol. 203; no. 6; p. 443
Main Authors: Chen, Ling, Zhang, Guiqing, Hu, Min, Liang, Xia
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: United States 01.06.2015
Subjects:
ISSN:1539-736X, 1539-736X
Online Access:Get more information
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary: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.
Bibliography: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