Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing – Standard Protocol

Target Population

EMDR – Standard Protocol is designed to treat individuals experiencing distress associated with traumatic memories. It is also applied to a variety of other mental health problems.

Dosage

The initial intake session typically lasts for at least 50 minutes and subsequent sessions typically last for about 90 minutes each. The length of treatment must include at least 2 sessions but depends on the specific problem and client history (e.g., the number of traumas, the age when trauma was experienced, the age of symptom onset). The clinician and client mutually determine the frequency of sessions.

Location/Delivery Setting

Recommended Locations/Delivery Settings

EMDR – Standard Protocol is delivered in a clinical setting.

Location/Delivery Settings Observed in the Research

• Mental Health Center, Treatment Center, Therapist Office
• Hospital/Medical Center
• School

Education, Certifications and Training

A clinical background is necessary to implement EMDR – Standard Protocol. Clinicians providing EMDR – Standard Protocol must be licensed mental health professionals with a master’s degree or higher in the mental health field. Interns and graduate students may also provide EMDR – Standard Protocol if they are on a licensing track under state sanctioned supervision by a licensed clinician. Clinicians providing EMDR – Standard Protocol must complete a formal training program with licensed and trained EMDR practitioners.

Program or Service Documentation

Book/Manual/Available documentation used for review

Shapiro, F. (2018). Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing: Basic principles, protocols, and procedures (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.

Available languages

The manual for EMDR – Standard Protocol is available in English.

Other supporting materials

EMDRIA Overview

EMDRIA Training Information

EMDR Institute Overview

EMDR Institute Training Information

For More Information

EMDR International Association

Website: https://www.emdria.org/

Phone: (512) 451-5200

Email: info@emdria.org

EMDR Institute

Website: https://www.emdr.com/

Phone: (831) 761-1040

Email: inst@emdr.com

Note: The details on Dosage; Location; Education, Certifications, and Training; Other Supporting Materials; and For More Information sections above are provided to website users for informational purposes only. This information is not exhaustive and may be subject to change.

Results of Search and Review	Number of Studies Identified and Reviewed for Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing – Standard Protocol
Identified in Search	161
Eligible for Review	46
Rated High	14
Rated Moderate	7
Rated Low	25
Reviewed Only for Risk of Harm	0

Outcome	Effect Size and Implied Percentile Effect	N of Studies (Findings)	N of Participants	Summary of Findings
Child well-being: Behavioral and emotional functioning	0.02 0	1 (6)	33	Favorable: 1 No Effect: 5 Unfavorable: 0
Adult well-being: Parent/caregiver mental or emotional health	1.01 34	20 (126)	933	Favorable: 55 No Effect: 69 Unfavorable: 1
Adult well-being: Parent/caregiver physical health	3.02 49	2 (3)	120	Favorable: 3 No Effect: 0 Unfavorable: 0

Note: For the effect sizes and implied percentile effects reported in the table, a positive number favors the intervention group and a negative number favors the comparison group. The effect sizes shown may be derived from samples that overlap across studies. See the Individual Study Findings table for information about the specific comparison conditions used in each study and the Studies Reviewed section for information about any overlapping samples. The effect sizes presented here are provided for informational purposes only and are not used in determining a program or service rating. Effect sizes for some outcomes were not able to be calculated by the Prevention Services Clearinghouse.

Outcome	Effect Size and Implied Percentile Effect	N of Studies (Findings)	N of Participants	Summary of Findings	Months after treatment when outcome measured
Child well-being: Behavioral and emotional functioning	0.02 0	1 (6)	33	Favorable: 1 No Effect: 5 Unfavorable: 0	-
Study 11127 - EMDR vs. Waiting List Control (Ahmad, 2007)
Posttraumatic Stress Symptom Scale for Children: Total Score	-0.07 -2	-	33	-	0
Posttraumatic Stress Symptom Scale for Children: Stress Symptoms (PTSD-related)	0.15 5	-	33	-	0
Posttraumatic Stress Symptom Scale for Children: Re-experiencing	0.94 * 32	-	33	-	0
Posttraumatic Stress Symptom Scale for Children: Avoidance	0.06 2	-	33	-	0
Posttraumatic Stress Symptom Scale for Children: Hyperarousal	-0.59 -22	-	33	-	0
Posttraumatic Stress Symptom Scale for Children: Stress Symptoms (non-PTSD-related)	-0.37 -14	-	33	-	0
Adult well-being: Parent/caregiver mental or emotional health	1.01 34	20 (126)	933	Favorable: 55 No Effect: 69 Unfavorable: 1	-
Study 11167 - Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EDMR) vs. Wait-List Control (Acarturk, 2015 - Not conducted in a usual care or practice setting)
Impact of Event Scale-Revised: Total Score	2.42 * 49	-	29	-	0
Beck Depression Inventory-II	1.41 * 42	-	29	-	0
Study 11170 - Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EDMR) vs. Waiting list control (Aldahadha, 2012)
Posttraumatic Stress Scale	2.26 * 48	-	51	-	0
Study 11138 - EMDR and Standard Residential Eating Disorders Treatment vs. Standard Residential Eating Disorders Treatment (Bloomgarden, 2008)
Body Investment Scale	Null not calculated	-	86	-	0
Body Investment Scale	Null not calculated	-	81	-	3
Body Investment Scale	Null not calculated	-	66	-	12
Appearance Schemas Inventory: Body Image Vulnerability	Null not calculated	-	86	-	0
Appearance Schemas Inventory: Body Image Vulnerability	Null not calculated	-	81	-	3
Appearance Schemas Inventory: Body Image Vulnerability	Null not calculated	-	66	-	12
Appearance Schemas Inventory: Self-Investment	Null not calculated	-	86	-	0
Appearance Schemas Inventory: Self-Investment	Null not calculated	-	81	-	3
Appearance Schemas Inventory: Self-Investment	Null not calculated	-	66	-	12
Appearance Schemas Inventory: Appearance Stereotyping	Null not calculated	-	86	-	0
Appearance Schemas Inventory: Appearance Stereotyping	Null not calculated	-	81	-	3
Appearance Schemas Inventory: Appearance Stereotyping	Null not calculated	-	66	-	12
Eating Disorder Inventory-2: Body Dissatisfaction	Null not calculated	-	86	-	0
Eating Disorder Inventory-2: Body Dissatisfaction	Null not calculated	-	81	-	3
Eating Disorder Inventory-2: Body Dissatisfaction	Null not calculated	-	66	-	12
Eating Attitudes Test-26	Null not calculated	-	86	-	0
Eating Attitudes Test-26	Null not calculated	-	81	-	3
Eating Attitudes Test-26	Null not calculated	-	66	-	12
Beck Depression Inventory	Null not calculated	-	86	-	0
Beck Depression Inventory	Null not calculated	-	81	-	3
Beck Depression Inventory	Null not calculated	-	66	-	12
Dissociative Experiences Scale	Null not calculated	-	86	-	0
Dissociative Experiences Scale	Null not calculated	-	81	-	3
Dissociative Experiences Scale	Null not calculated	-	66	-	12
Study 11178 - Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) vs. Waitlist Control (Carlson, 1998)
Mississippi Scale for Combat-Related PTSD	0.88 31	-	22	-	0
Impact of Event Scale: Total Score	0.15 5	-	22	-	0
Impact of Event Scale: Intrusion	0.31 12	-	22	-	0
Impact of Event Scale: Avoidance	0.00 0	-	22	-	0
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory: State Anxiety	0.04 1	-	22	-	0
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory: Trait Anxiety	0.85 30	-	22	-	0
Beck Depression Inventory	1.13 * 37	-	22	-	0
PTSD Symptoms Scale	1.18 * 38	-	22	-	0
Study 11140 - EMDR vs. No Treatment (Cook-Vienot, 2012)
Test Anxiety Inventory: Total	2.42 * 49	-	20	-	0
Test Anxiety Inventory: Worry	2.17 * 48	-	20	-	0
Test Anxiety Inventory: Emotionality	2.31 * 48	-	20	-	0
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory: Trait Anxiety	1.20 * 38	-	20	-	0
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory: State Anxiety	1.46 * 42	-	20	-	0
Rational Behavior Inventory	0.57 21	-	20	-	0
Study 11186 - Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) vs. Routine Care (Edmond, 2004 - Not conducted in a usual care or practice setting)
Beck Depression Inventory	0.09 3	-	40	-	1
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory: State Anxiety	0.36 13	-	40	-	1
Impact of Events Scale	0.24 9	-	40	-	1
Beliefs Inventory	0.31 12	-	40	-	1
Study 11144 - Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) vs. Treatment as usual Control (Fereidouni, 2019)
Beck Scale for Suicide Ideation	3.15 * 49	-	70	-	0
Study 11145 - Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) vs. Waitlist (WL) Control (Feske, 1997)
Panic Appraisal Inventory: Panic Consequences-Loss of Control Concerns	0.47 17	-	27	-	0
Agoraphobic Cognitions Questionnaire: Social Concerns	0.27 10	-	27	-	0
Beck Anxiety Inventory	1.35 * 41	-	27	-	0
Mobility Inventory: Avoidance Alone	0.51 19	-	27	-	0
Mobility Inventory: Avoidance Accompanied	0.61 22	-	27	-	0
Panic Appraisal Inventory: Anticipated Panic	0.52 19	-	27	-	0
Panic Appraisal Inventory: Panic Consequences-Physical Concerns	0.71 26	-	27	-	0
Frequency of Panic Attacks (Self-Report)	0.79 28	-	27	-	0
Brief Symptom Inventory	0.91 * 31	-	27	-	0
Social Adjustment Scale	0.71 26	-	27	-	0
Study 11146 - EMDR vs. Waitlist Control (Goldstein, 2000)
Body Sensations Questionnaire	0.19 7	-	27	-	0
Panic Disorder Severity Scale (Interview)	0.95 * 32	-	27	-	0
Panic Appraisal Inventory: Anticipated Panic	0.46 17	-	27	-	0
Average Daily Anxiety	0.76 27	-	27	-	0
Fear of Panic	0.65 24	-	27	-	0
Panic Attack Expectancy (Daily)	0.30 11	-	27	-	0
Panic Attack Expectancy (Weekly)	0.46 17	-	27	-	0
Cognitive Anxiety Composite Factor	0.35 13	-	27	-	0
Panic and Agoraphobia Severity Composite Factor	0.79 28	-	27	-	0
Self-Monitoring Anxiety Composite Factor	0.60 22	-	27	-	0
Study 11150 - Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) + Treatment as Usual (TAU) vs. TAU (Hase, 2018)
Beck Depression Inventory-II	0.30 11	-	30	-	0
Study 11288 - EDMR vs CBT (Hofmann, 2014)
Beck Depression Inventory-II	0.85 * 30	-	42	-	0
Study 11197 - Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) vs. Waiting list (WL) Control (Högberg, 2007)
Global Assessment of Functioning	1.36 * 41	-	21	-	0
Hamilton Depression Scale	0.76 27	-	21	-	0
Impact of Event Scale	0.63 23	-	21	-	0
Study 11144 - Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) vs. Treatment as usual Control (Jahanfar, 2020)
World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF: Psychological Scale	1.83 * 46	-	70	-	0
Study 11200 - Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMD/R) vs. Referred to other treatment sites Control (Jensen, 1994)
Structured Interview for PTSD	0.30 11	-	25	-	0
Mississippi Scale for Combat-Related PTSD	-1.04 * -34	-	25	-	0
Study 11202 - Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) vs. Waitlist Control (CL) (Köhler, 2017)
Posttraumatic Stress Diagnostic Scale: Total Symptom Severity	0.76 * 27	-	96	-	0
Posttraumatic Stress Diagnostic Scale: Reexperiencing	0.44 16	-	96	-	0
Study 11206 - Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) vs. Standard Care (SC) (Marcus, 1997)
Modified PTSD Scale	0.86 * 30	-	61	-	0
Beck Depression Inventory	0.73 * 26	-	61	-	0
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory: State Anxiety	0.52 19	-	61	-	0
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory: Trait Anxiety	0.65 * 24	-	61	-	0
Impact of Event Scale	1.24 * 39	-	61	-	0
Symptom Checklist-90: Global Severity Index	0.62 * 23	-	61	-	0
Symptom Checklist-90: Positive Symptom Distress Index	0.97 * 33	-	61	-	0
Global Assessment of Functioning	0.71 * 26	-	61	-	0
Study 11284 - Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) vs. Waitlist Control (Nia, 2018)
Rheumatoid Arthritis Pain Scale: Affective	4.28 * 49	-	50	-	0
Rheumatoid Arthritis Pain Scale: Cognitive	9.93 * 50	-	50	-	0
Study 11214 - Eye-Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) vs. Waiting list (WL) Control (Power, 2002)
Impact of Event Scale: Avoidance	1.62 * 44	-	51	-	0
Structured Interview for PTSD Symptom Checklist: Arousal	1.68 * 45	-	51	-	0
The Hospital Anxiety Scale	1.29 * 40	-	51	-	0
Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale	1.36 * 41	-	51	-	0
Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety	1.35 * 41	-	51	-	0
Study 11219 - Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) vs. Wait list control group (WAIT) (Rothbaum, 2005)
Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale: Intrusion	1.32 * 40	-	40	-	0
Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale: Avoidance	1.59 * 44	-	40	-	0
Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale: Total Score	1.64 * 44	-	40	-	0
Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale: Hyperarousal	1.28 * 40	-	40	-	0
Impact of Event Scale-Revised: Intrusion	1.49 * 43	-	40	-	0
Impact of Event Scale-Revised: Avoidance	1.40 * 41	-	40	-	0
Impact of Event Scale-Revised: Hyperarousal	1.39 * 41	-	40	-	0
Impact of Event Scale-Revised: Total Score	1.51 * 43	-	40	-	0
PTSD Symptom Scale Self-Report: Intrusion	1.60 * 44	-	40	-	0
PTSD Symptom Scale Self-Report: Avoidance	1.27 * 39	-	40	-	0
PTSD Symptom Scale Self-Report: Hyperarousal	1.45 * 42	-	40	-	0
PTSD Symptom Scale Self-Report: Total Score	1.65 * 45	-	40	-	0
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory: State Anxiety	1.62 * 44	-	40	-	0
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory: Trait Anxiety	1.19 * 38	-	40	-	0
Dissociative Experiences Scale-II	1.03 * 34	-	40	-	0
Beck Depression Inventory	1.23 * 39	-	40	-	0
Study 11242 - Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) vs. Traditional stress management program (SMP) (Wilson, 2001)
State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory: Trait Anger	0.61 * 22	-	62	-	0
State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory: Trait Anger	1.19 * 38	-	61	-	6
State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory: State Anger	0.12 4	-	62	-	0
State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory: State Anger	0.57 * 21	-	61	-	6
Police Stress Inventory	Null not calculated	-	62	-	0
Police Stress Inventory	Null not calculated	-	61	-	6
Posttraumatic Stress Diagnostic Scale: PTSD Severity	0.43 16	-	62	-	0
Posttraumatic Stress Diagnostic Scale: PTSD Severity	No Data Entered not calculated	-	61	-	6
Symptom Check List-90-Revised	Null not calculated	-	62	-	0
Symptom Check List-90-Revised	Null not calculated	-	61	-	6
Posttraumatic Stress Diagnostic Scale: PTSD Diagnosis	1.40 41	-	62	-	0
Posttraumatic Stress Diagnostic Scale: PTSD Diagnosis	1.63 * 44	-	61	-	6
Study 11183 - Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) vs. Waiting list (WL) Control (de Bont, 2016)
Green Paranoid Thought Scale	0.58 * 22	-	83	-	0
Green Paranoid Thought Scale	0.33 12	-	82	-	6
Beck Depression Inventory-II	0.42 16	-	83	-	0
Beck Depression Inventory-II	0.15 5	-	82	-	6
Structured Clinical Interview for Symptoms of Remission for the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale	0.69 * 25	-	83	-	0
Study 11183 - Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) vs. Waiting list (WL) Control (van den Berg, 2015)
Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale: Loss of Diagnosis	0.85 * 30	-	83	-	0
Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale: Full Remission	0.40 15	-	83	-	0
Adult well-being: Parent/caregiver physical health	3.02 49	2 (3)	120	Favorable: 3 No Effect: 0 Unfavorable: 0	-
Study 11144 - Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) vs. Treatment as usual Control (Jahanfar, 2020)
World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF: Physical Health Scale	2.36 * 49	-	70	-	0
Study 11284 - Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) vs. Waitlist Control (Nia, 2018)
Rheumatoid Arthritis Pain Scale: Physiological	6.12 * 49	-	50	-	0
Rheumatoid Arthritis Pain Scale: Sensory Discriminative	6.04 * 49	-	50	-	0

*p <.05

Note: For the effect sizes and implied percentile effects reported in the table, a positive number favors the intervention group and a negative number favors the comparison group. Effect sizes and implied percentile effects were calculated by the Prevention Services Clearinghouse as described in the Handbook of Standards and Procedures, Version 1.0, Section 5.10.4 and may not align with effect sizes reported in individual publications. The Prevention Services Clearinghouse uses information reported in study documents and, when necessary, information provided by authors in response to author queries to assign study ratings and calculate effect sizes and statistical significance (see Section 7.3.2 in the Handbook of Standards and Procedures, Version 1.0). As a result, the effect sizes and statistical significance reported in the table may not align with the estimates as they are reported in study documents. Effect sizes for some outcomes were not able to be calculated by the Prevention Services Clearinghouse.

Only publications with eligible contrasts that met design and execution standards are included in the individual study findings table.

Full citations for the studies shown in the table are available in the "Studies Reviewed" section.

The participant characteristics display is an initial version. We encourage those interested in providing feedback to send suggestions to preventionservices@abtglobal.com.

The table below displays locations, the year, and participant demographics for studies that received moderate or high ratings on design and execution and that reported the information. Participant characteristics for studies with more than one intervention versus comparison group pair that received moderate or high ratings are shown separately in the table. Please note, the information presented here uses terminology directly from the study documents, when available. Studies that received moderate or high ratings on design and execution that did not include relevant participant demographic information would not be represented in this table.

For more information on how Clearinghouse reviewers record the information in the table, please see our Resource Guide on Study Participant Characteristics and Settings.

Characteristics of the Participants in the Studies with Moderate or High Ratings
Study Location	Study Year	Age or Grade-level	Race, Ethnicity, Nationality	Gender	Populations of Interest*	Household Socioeconomic Status
Study 11127 - EMDR vs. Waiting List Control
Characteristics of the Children and Youth
Sweden	--	Age range: 6-16 years	76% Born in Sweden 15% European birth country (other than Sweden) 3% Other birth country	61% Female 39% Male	21% Experienced sexual abuse; 12% Foster care; 3% Autism Spectrum Disorder	--
Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers
Sweden	--	--	--	--	61% Psychiatric disease, 30% Somatic disease, 21% Alcoholism	--
Study 11284 - Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) vs. Waitlist Control
Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers
Yasuj, Iran	2016	Average age: 45 years	--	85% Female	--	--
Study 11167 - Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EDMR) vs. Wait-List Control
Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers
Kilis, Turkey	2013	Mean Age: 37; Age range: 19-63	--	76% Female 24% Male	100% PTSD symptoms (IES-R score 33+)	--
Study 11144 - Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) vs. Treatment as usual Control
Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers
Yasuj, Iran	2017	Average age: 36 years; Age range: 19-63 years	--	67% Female 33% Male	--	53% Domestic worker 27% Unemployed 7% Employed
Study 11138 - EMDR and Standard Residential Eating Disorders Treatment vs. Standard Residential Eating Disorders Treatment
Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers
Philadelphia, PA, USA	--	Average age: 25 years	94% European American 3% Hispanic American 2% Asian American 1% African American	100% Women	31% Participants had a diagnosis of anorexia nervosa-restricting subtype, 27% had a diagnosis of bulimia nervosa, 42% had a diagnosed eating disorder not otherwise specified.	--
Study 11178 - Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) vs. Waitlist Control
Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers
Honolulu, HI, USA	--	Average age: 49 years; Age range: 41-70 years	55% White 45% Non-White	--	100% Previously diagnosed with PTSD	32% Employed
Study 11145 - Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) vs. Waitlist (WL) Control
Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers
--	--	Average age: 35 years; Age range: 20-54 years	85% Caucasian 15% African American	78% Female	100% Panic disorder, 18% Simple phobia, 15% Generalized anxiety disorder, 8% Major depression, 5% Social phobia, 3% Dysthymia, 13% Anxious cluster personality disorders	53% Employed
Study 11288 - EDMR vs CBT
Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers
Krefeld, Germany	--	Average age: 40 years	--	79% Female 21% Male	--	--
Study 11170 - Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EDMR) vs. Waiting list control
Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers
Sultanate of Oman	--	Average age: 26 years; Age range: 19-37 years	94% Omanis	53% Male 47% Female	--	--
Study 11146 - EMDR vs. Waitlist Control
Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers
Bala Cynwyd, PA, USA; Chapel Hill, NC, USA	--	Average age: 38 years; Age range: 22-63 years	94% European American 4.3% African American 2.2% Asian American	80% Female	100% met Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 4th Edition criteria for panic disorder with agoraphobia	--
Study 11242 - Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) vs. Traditional stress management program (SMP)
Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers
Colorado, USA	--	Average age: 37 years; Age range: 23-53 years	75% Caucasian 16% Hispanic 5% Black 2% Other	79% Male 21% Female	--	--
Study 11140 - EMDR vs. No Treatment
Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers
Texas, USA	--	Average age: 40 years; Age range: 19-53 years	--	73% Female 27% Male	Self-reported score of 6 or higher regarding test anxiety rated on the Subjective Units of Distress scale	--
Study 11219 - Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) vs. Wait list control group (WAIT)
Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers
--	--	Average age: 34 years	68% Caucasian	100% Women	100% PTSD diagnosis, 40% had one comorbid diagnosis, 25% had two or more diagnoses in addition to PTSD	30% Household income over $40,000 77% Employed full-time, part-time, or were full-time students
Study 11150 - Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) + Treatment as Usual (TAU) vs. TAU
Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers
Bad Bevensen, Germany	2017	Mean age: 40 years	--	90% Male 10% Female	40% have one or more child(ren)	--
Study 11183 - Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) vs. Waiting list (WL) Control
Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers
The Netherlands	2011	Average age: 40 years	60% Dutch 35% Non-Western 5% Western, non-Dutch	53% Female 47% Male	63% Schizophrenia, 27% Schizoaffective disorder, 5% Bipolar disorder with psychotic features, 3% Psychotic disorder not otherwise specified, 1% Brief psychotic disorder, 1% Depression with psychotic features; 15% Sheltered housing	10% Employed
Study 11206 - Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) vs. Standard Care (SC)
Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers
California, USA	--	Average age: 41 years; Age range: 18-73 years	66% Caucasian 13% African American 12% Latino 4% Other 3% Asian/Pacific Islander 2% Native American/Alaskan Native	79% Women 21% Men	--	--
Study 11214 - Eye-Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) vs. Waiting list (WL) Control
Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers
central Scotland, UK	--	Average age: 38 years	--	57% Male 43% Female	--	--
Study 11200 - Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMD/R) vs. Referred to other treatment sites Control
Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers
USA	--	Average age: 43 years	--	100% Male	40% VA diagnosis of alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence	68% Unemployed
Study 11202 - Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) vs. Waitlist Control (CL)
Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers
Berlin, Germany	--	Average age: 32 years; Age range: 20-56 years	--	92% Men 8% Women	57% Clinically significant symptoms of depression, 30% Mildly depressed; 32% Severe PTSD symptoms, 63% Moderate to severe PTSD symptoms, 5% Moderate PTSD symptoms	--
Study 11197 - Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) vs. Waiting list (WL) Control
Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers
Stockholm, Sweden	1999	Average age: 43 years	46% Swedish born	79% Men 21% Women	--	--

“--” indicates information not reported in the study.

* The information about disabilities is based on initial coding. For more information on how the Clearinghouse recorded disability information for the initial release, please see our Resource Guide on Study Participant Characteristics and Settings. The Clearinghouse is currently seeking consultation from experts, including those with lived experience, and input from the public to enhance and improve the display.

Note: Citations for the documents associated with each 5-digit study number shown in the table can be found in the “Studies Reviewed” section below. Study settings and participant demographics are recorded for all studies that received moderate or high ratings on design and execution and that reported the information. Studies that did not report any information about setting or participant demographics are not displayed. For more information on how participant characteristics are recorded, please see our Resource Guide on Study Participant Characteristics and Settings.

Sometimes study results are reported in more than one document, or a single document reports results from multiple studies. Studies are identified below by their Prevention Services Clearinghouse study identification numbers. To receive a rating of supported or well-supported, the favorable evidence for a program or service must have been obtained from research conducted in a usual care or practice setting.

Studies Rated High

Study 11284

Nia, N. G., Afrasiabifar, A., & Behnammoghadam, M. (2018). Comparing the effect of eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) with guided imagery on pain severity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Journal of Pain Research, 11, 2107-2113. https://doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S158981

This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 6.2.2)
Study 11167

Acarturk, C., Konuk, E., Cetinkaya, M., Senay, I., Sijbrandij, M., Cuijpers, P., & Aker, T. (2015). EMDR for Syrian refugees with posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms: Results of a pilot randomized controlled trial. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 6, 27414. https://doi.org/10.3402/ejpt.v6.27414

This study was not conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 6.2.2)
Study 11144

Fereidouni, Z., Behnammoghadam, M., Jahanfar, A., & Dehghan, A. (2019). The effect of Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) on the severity of suicidal thoughts in patients with major depressive disorder: A randomized controlled trial. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, 15, 2459-2466. https://doi.org/10.2147/NDT.S210757

Jahanfar, A., Fereidouni, Z., Behnammoghadam, M., Dehghan, A., & Bashti, S. (2020). Efficacy of eye movement desensitization and reprocessing on the quality of life in patients with major depressive disorder: A randomized clinical trial. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 13, 11-17. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S232589

This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 6.2.2)
Study 11138

Bloomgarden, A., & Calogero, R. M. (2008). A randomized experimental test of the efficacy of EMDR treatment on negative body image in eating disorder inpatients. Eating Disorders, 16(5), 418-427. https://doi.org/10.1080/10640260802370598

This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 6.2.2)
Study 11186

Edmond, T., Rubin, A., & Wambach, K. G. (1999). The effectiveness of EMDR with adult female survivors of childhood sexual abuse. Social Work Research, 23(2), 103-116. https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/23.2.103

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. https://doi.org/10.1300/J070v13n01_04

Some contrasts that received a moderate or high design and execution rating in this study were not from research conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 6.2.2) [see Individual Study Findings section above for additional information on contrasts that did or did not meet this criterion]
Study 11178

Carlson, J. G., Chemtob, C. M., Rusnak, K., Hedlund, N. L., & Muraoka, M. Y. (1998). Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EDMR) treatment for combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 11(1), 3-24. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1024448814268

This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 6.2.2)
Study 11127

Ahmad, A., Larsson, B., & Sundelin-Wahlsten, V. (2007). EMDR treatment for children with PTSD: Results of a randomized controlled trial. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 61(5), 349-354. https://doi.org/10.1080/08039480701643464

Ahmad, A., & Sundelin-Wahlsten, V. (2008). Applying EMDR on children with PTSD. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 17(3), 127-132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-007-0646-8

Ahmad, A., Larsson, B., & Sundelin-Wahlsten, V. (2017). 'EMDR treatment for children with PTSD: Results of a randomized controlled trial': Corrigendum. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 71(4), 324-324. https://doi.org/10.1080/08039488.2017.1301704

This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 6.2.2)
Study 11170

Aldahadha, B., Al-Harthy, H., & Sulaiman, S. (2012). The efficacy of Eye Movement Desensitization Reprocessing in resolving the trauma caused by the road accidents in the Sultanate of Oman. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 39(3-4), 146-158.

This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 6.2.2)
Study 11242

Wilson, S. A., Tinker, R. H., Becker, L. A., & Logan, C. R. (2001). Stress management with law enforcement personnel: A controlled outcome study of EMDR versus a traditional stress management program. International Journal of Stress Management, 8(3), 179-200. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011366408693

This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 6.2.2)
Study 11140

Cook-Vienot, R., & Taylor, R. J. (2012). Comparison of Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing and Biofeedback/Stress Inoculation Training in treating test anxiety. Journal of EMDR Practice and Research, 6(2), 62-72. https://doi.org/10.1891/1933-3196.6.2.62

This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 6.2.2)
Study 11219

Rothbaum, B. O., Astin, M. C., & Marsteller, F. (2005). Prolonged Exposure versus Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) for PTSD rape victims. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 18(6), 607-616. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.20069

Gerardi, M., Rothbaum, B. O., Astin, M. C., & Kelley, M. (2010). Cortisol response following exposure treatment for PTSD in rape victims. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 19(4), 349-356. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771003781297

This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 6.2.2)
Study 11150

Hase, M., Plagge, J., Hase, A., Braas, R., Ostacoli, L., Hofmann, A., & Huchzermeier, C. (2018). Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing versus treatment as usual in the treatment of depression: A randomized-controlled trial. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 1384. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01384

This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 6.2.2)
Study 11183

van den Berg, D. P. G., de Bont, P. A. J. M., van der Vleugel, B. M., de Roos, C., de Jongh, A., van Minnen, A., & van der Gaag, M. (2015). Prolonged Exposure vs Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing vs waiting list for posttraumatic stress disorder in patients with a psychotic disorder: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Psychiatry, 72(3), 259-267. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2014.2637

de Bont, P. A. J. M., van den Berg, D. P. G., van der Vleugel, B. M., de Roos, C., de Jongh, A., van der Gaag, M., & van Minnen, A. M. (2016). Prolonged exposure and EMDR for PTSD v. a PTSD waiting-list condition: Effects on symptoms of psychosis, depression and social functioning in patients with chronic psychotic disorders. Psychological Medicine, 46(11), 2411-2421. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291716001094

van Minnen, A., van der Vleugel, B. M., van den Berg, D. P. G., de Bont, P. A. J. M., de Roos, C., van der Gaag, M., & de Jongh, A. (2016). Effectiveness of trauma-focused treatment for patients with psychosis with and without the dissociative subtype of post-traumatic stress disorder. British Journal of Psychiatry, 209(4), 347-348. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.116.185579

van den Berg, D. P. G., de Bont, P. A. J. M., van der Vleugel, B. M., de Roos, C., de Jongh, A., van Minnen, A., & van der Gaag, M. (2016). Trauma-focused treatment in PTSD patients with psychosis: Symptom exacerbation, adverse events, and revictimization. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 42(3), 693-702. https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbv172

van den Berg, D. P. G., van der Vleugel, B. M., de Bont, P. A. J. M., Staring, A. B. P., Kraan, T., Ising, H., de Roos, C., de Jongh, A., van Minnen, A., & van der Gaag, M. (2016). Predicting trauma-focused treatment outcome in psychosis. Schizophrenia Research, 176(2/3), 239-244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.schres.2016.07.016

van den Berg, D., de Bont, P. A. J. M., van der Vleugel, B. M., de Roos, C., de Jongh, A., van Minnen, A., & van der Gaag, M. (2018). Long-term outcomes of trauma-focused treatment in psychosis. British Journal of Psychiatry, 212(3), 180-182. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2017.30

de Bont, P. A. J. M., van der Vleugel, B. M., van den Berg, D. P. G., de Roos, C., Lokkerbol, J., Smit, F., de Jongh, A., van der Gaag, M., & van Minnen, A. (2019). Health-economic benefits of treating trauma in psychosis. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 10(1), Article 1565032. https://doi.org/10.1080/20008198.2018.1565032

de Bont, P. A. J. M., van Minnen, A., & de Jongh, A. (2013). Treating PTSD in patients with psychosis: A within-group controlled feasibility study examining the efficacy and safety of evidence-based PE and EMDR protocols. Behavior Therapy, 44(4), 717-730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2013.07.002

This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 6.2.2)
Study 11200

Jensen, J. A. (1994). An investigation of Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMD/R) as a treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms of Vietnam combat veterans. Behavior Therapy, 25(2), 311-325. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894(05)80290-4

This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 6.2.2)

Studies Rated Moderate

Study 11145

Feske, U., & Goldstein, A. J. (1997). Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing treatment for panic disorder: A controlled outcome and partial dismantling study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65(6), 1026-1035. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-006x.65.6.1026

This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 6.2.2)
Study 11288

Hofmann, A., Hilgers, A., Lehnung, M., Liebermann, P., Ostacoli, L., Schneider, W., & Hase, M. (2014). Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing as an adjunctive treatment of unipolar depression: A controlled study. Journal of EMDR Practice and Research, 8(3), 103-112. https://doi.org/10.1891/1933-3196.8.3.103

This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 6.2.2)
Study 11146

Goldstein, A. J., de Beurs, E., Chambless, D. L., & Wilson, K. A. (2000). EMDR for panic disorder with agoraphobia: Comparison with waiting list and credible attention-placebo control conditions. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68(6), 947-956. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.68.6.947

This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 6.2.2)
Study 11206

Marcus, S. V., Marquis, P., & Sakai, C. (1997). Controlled study of treatment of PTSD using EMDR in an HMO setting. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 34(3), 307-315. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0087791

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(3), 195-208. https://doi.org/10.1037/1072-5245.11.3.195

This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 6.2.2)
Study 11214

Power, K., McGoldrick, T., Brown, K., Buchanan, R., Sharp, D., Swanson, V., & Karatzias, A. (2002). A controlled comparison of Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing versus exposure plus cognitive restructuring versus waiting list in the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 9(5), 299-318. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.341

This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 6.2.2)
Study 11202

Köhler, K., Lorenz, S., Herr, K., Willmund, G., Zimmermann, P., Alliger-Horn, C., & Eggert, P. (2017). Effectiveness of Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing in German armed forces soldiers with post-traumatic stress disorder under routine inpatient care conditions. Military Medicine, 182(5), e1672-e1680. https://doi.org/10.7205/MILMED-D-16-00307

This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 6.2.2)
Study 11197

Högberg, G., Pagani, M., Sundin, O., Soares, J., Aberg-Wistedt, A., Tärnell, B., & Hällström, T. (2007). On treatment with Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing of chronic post-traumatic stress disorder in public transportation workers - a randomized controlled trial. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 61(1), 54-61. https://doi.org/10.1080/08039480601129408

Pagani, M., Högberg, G., Salmaso, D., Nardo, D., Sundin, O., Jonsson, C., Soares, J., Aberg-Wistedt, A., Jacobsson, H., Larsson, S. A., & Hällström, T. (2007). Effects of EMDR psychotherapy on 99mTc-HMPAO distribution in occupation-related post-traumatic stress disorder. Nuclear Medicine Communications, 28(10), 757-765. https://doi.org/10.1097/mnm.0b013e3282742035

This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 6.2.2)

Studies Rated Low

Study 11156

Rahimi, F., Rejeh, N., Bahrami, T., Heravi-Karimooi, M., Tadrisi, S. D., Griffiths, P., & Vaismoradi, M. (2019). The effect of the Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing intervention on anxiety and depression among patients undergoing hemodialysis: A randomized controlled trial. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 55(4), 652-660. https://doi.org/10.1111/ppc.12389

This study received a low rating because it did not meet design confound standards.
Study 11173

Boukezzi, S., El Khoury-Malhame, M., Auzias, G., Reynaud, E., Rousseau, P.-F., Richard, E., Zendjidjian, X., Roques, J., Castelli, N., Correard, N., Guyon, V., Gellato, C., Samuelian, J.-C., Cancel, A., Comte, M., Latinus, M., Guedj, E., & Khalfa, S. (2017). Grey matter density changes of structures involved in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after recovery following Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) therapy. Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging, 266, 146-152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pscychresns.2017.06.009

This study received a low rating because it did not meet design confound standards.
Study 11213

Perez-Dandieu, B., & Tapia, G. (2014). Treating trauma in addiction with EMDR: A pilot study. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 46(4), 303-309. https://doi.org/10.1080/02791072.2014.921744

This study received a low rating because it did not meet design confound standards.
Study 11212

Novo, P., Landin-Romero, R., Radua, J., Vicens, V., Fernandez, I., Garcia, F., Pomarol-Clotet, E., McKenna, P. J., Shapiro, F., & Amann, B. L. (2014). Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing therapy in subsyndromal bipolar patients with a history of traumatic events: A randomized, controlled pilot-study. Psychiatry Research, 219(1), 122-128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2014.05.012

This study received a low rating because the standards for addressing missing data were not met.
Study 11159

Rostaminejad, A., Behnammoghadam, M., Rostaminejad, M., Behnammoghadam, Z., & Bashti, S. (2017). Efficacy of Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing on the phantom limb pain of patients with amputations within a 24-month follow-up. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 40(3), 209-214. https://doi.org/10.1097/MRR.0000000000000227

This study received a low rating because none of the target outcomes met measurement standards.
Study 11205

Macklin, M. L., Metzger, L. J., Lasko, N. B., Berry, N. J., Orr, S. P., & Pitman, R. K. (2000). Five-year follow-up study of Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing therapy for combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 41(1), 24-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-440x(00)90127-5

Pitman, R. K., Orr, S. P., Altman, B., Longpre, R. E., Poire, R. E., & Macklin, M. L. (1996). Emotional processing during Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing Therapy of Vietnam veterans with chronic posttraumatic stress disorder. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 37(6), 419-429. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-440x(96)90025-5

This study received a low rating because baseline equivalence of the intervention and comparison groups was necessary and not demonstrated.
Study 11165

Zeighami, R., Behnammoghadam, M., Moradi, M., & Bashti, S. (2018). Comparison of the effect of Eye Movement Desensitization Reprocessing and cognitive behavioral therapy on anxiety in patients with myocardial infarction. The European Journal of Psychiatry, 32(2), 72-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpsy.2017.09.001

This study received a low rating because baseline equivalence of the intervention and comparison groups was necessary and not demonstrated.
Study 11129

Jaberghaderi, N., Rezaei, M., Kolivand, M., & Shokoohi, A. (2019). Effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy and Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing in child victims of domestic violence. Iranian Journal of Psychiatry, 14(1), 67-75.

This study received a low rating because it did not meet design confound standards.
Study 11133

Rubin, A., Bischofshausen, S., Conroy-Moore, K., Dennis, B., Hastie, M., Melnick, L., Reeves, D., & Smith, T. (2001). The effectiveness of EMDR in a child guidance center. Research on Social Work Practice, 11(4), 435-457. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973150101100402

This study received a low rating because baseline equivalence of the intervention and comparison groups was necessary and not demonstrated.
Study 11226

Silver, S. M., Brooks, A., & Obenchain, J. (1995). Treatment of Vietnam War veterans with PTSD: A comparison of Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing, Biofeedback, and Relaxation Training. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 8(2), 337-342. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02109568

This study received a low rating because baseline equivalence of the intervention and comparison groups was necessary and not demonstrated.
Study 11201

Karatzias, T., Brown, M., Taggart, L., Truesdale, M., Sirisena, C., Walley, R., Mason-Roberts, S., Bradley, A., & Paterson, D. (2019). A mixed-methods, randomized controlled feasibility trial of Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) plus Standard Care (SC) versus SC alone for DSM-5 posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in adults with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 32(4), 806-818. https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12570

This study received a low rating because the standards for addressing missing data were not met.
Study 11243

Zimmermann, P., Biesold, K. H., Barre, K., & Lanczik, M. (2007). Long-term course of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in German soldiers: Effects of inpatient Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing therapy and specific trauma characteristics in patients with non-combat-related PTSD. Military Medicine, 172(5), 456-460. https://doi.org.10.7205/milmed.172.5.456

This study received a low rating because it did not meet design confound standards.
Study 11149

Hase, M., Balmaceda, U. M., Hase, A., Lehnung, M., Tumani, V., Huchzermeier, C., & Hofmann, A. (2015). Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) therapy in the treatment of depression: A matched pairs study in an inpatient setting. Brain and Behavior, 5(6), Article e00342. https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.342

This study received a low rating because it did not meet design confound standards.
Study 11185

Devilly, G. J., Spence, S. H., & Rapee, R. M. (1998). Statistical and reliable change with Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing: Treating trauma within a veteran population. Behavior Therapy, 29(3), 435-455. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894(98)80042-7

This study received a low rating because it did not meet design confound standards.
Study 11229

Tarquinio, C., Brennstuhl, M. J., Rydberg, J. A., Schmitt, A., Mouda, F., Lourel, M., & Tarquinio, P. (2012). Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) therapy in the treatment of victims of domestic violence: A pilot study. European Review of Applied Psychology, 62(4), 205-212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2012.08.006

This study received a low rating because it did not meet design confound standards.
Study 11130

Kemp, M., Drummond, P., & McDermott, B. (2010). A wait-list controlled pilot study of Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) for children with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms from motor vehicle accidents. Clinical Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 15(1), 5-25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359104509339086

This study received a low rating because it did not meet design confound standards.
Study 11134

Soberman, G. B., Greenwald, R., & Rule, D. L. (2002). A controlled study of Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) for boys with conduct problems. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 6(1), 217-236. https://doi.org/10.1300/J146v06n01_11

This study received a low rating because it did not meet design confound standards.
Study 11143

Enright, M., Baldo, T. D., & Wykes, S. D. (2011). The efficacy of Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing Therapy technique in the treatment of test anxiety of college students. Journal of College Counseling, 3(1), 36-48. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1882.2000.tb00162.x

This study received a low rating because it did not meet design confound standards.
Study 11191

Gauhar, Y. W. M. (2016). The efficacy of EMDR in the treatment of depression. Journal of EMDR Practice and Research, 10(2), 59-69. https://doi.org/10.1891/1933-3196.10.2.59

This study received a low rating because it did not meet design confound standards.
Study 11218

Rothbaum, B. O. (1997). A controlled study of Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing in the treatment of posttraumatic stress disordered sexual assault victims. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 61(3), 317-334.

This study received a low rating because it did not meet design confound standards.
Study 11268

Brooker, E. (2018). Music performance anxiety: A clinical outcome study into the effects of Cognitive Hypnotherapy and Eye Movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing in advanced pianists. Psychology of Music, 46(1), 107-124. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735617703473

This study received a low rating because it did not meet design confound standards.
Study 11163

Szpringer, M., Oledzka, M., & Amann, B. L. (2018). A non-randomized controlled trial of EMDR on affective symptoms in patients with glioblastoma multiforme. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 785. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00785

This study received a low rating because it did not meet design confound standards.
Study 11216

Renner, W., Banninger-Huber, E., & Peltzer, K. (2011). Culture-Sensitive and Resource Oriented Peer (CROP)-Groups as a community based intervention for trauma survivors: A randomized controlled pilot study with refugees and asylum seekers from Chechnya. Australasian Journal of Disaster and Trauma Studies, 2011(1), 1-13.

This study received a low rating because it did not meet design confound standards.
Study 11238

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 Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR), fluoxetine, and pill placebo in the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder: Treatment effects and long-term maintenance. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 68(1), 37-46. https://doi.org/10.4088/jcp.v68n0105

This study received a low rating because the standards for addressing missing data were not met.
Study 11128

Chemtob, C. M., Nakashima, J., & Carlson, J. G. (2002). Brief treatment for elementary school children with disaster-related posttraumatic stress disorder: A field study. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58(1), 99-112. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.1131

This study received a low rating because baseline equivalence of the intervention and comparison groups was necessary and not demonstrated.

Studies Not Eligible for Review

Study 11125

Maroufi, M., Zamani, S., Izadikhah, Z., Marofi, M., & O'Connor, P. (2016). Investigating the effect of Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) on postoperative pain intensity in adolescents undergoing surgery: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 72(9), 2207-2217. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.12985

This study is ineligible for review because it does not report program or service impacts on an eligible target outcome (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.5).

Study 11126

Muris, P., Merckelbach, H., Holdrinet, I., & Sijsenaar, M. (1998). Treating phobic children: Effects of EMDR versus exposure. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66(1), 193-198. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-006x.66.1.193

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 11131

Meentken, M. G., van Beynum, I. M., Aendekerk, E. W. C., Legerstee, J. S., El Marroun, H., van der Ende, J., Lindauer, R. J. L., Hillegers, M. H. J., Moll, H. A., Helbing, W. A., & Utens, E. M. W. J. (2018). Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) in children and adolescents with subthreshold PTSD after medically related trauma: Design of a randomized controlled trial. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/20008198.2018.1536287

Meentken, M. G., van der Mheen, M., van Beynum, I. M., Aendekerk, E. W. C., Legerstee, J. S., van der Ende, J., Del Canho, R., Lindauer, R. J. L., Hillegers, M. H. J., Moll, H. A., Helbing, W. A., & Utens, E. M. W. J. (2020). EMDR for children with medically related subthreshold PTSD: Short-term effects on PTSD, blood-injection-injury phobia, depression and sleep. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/20008198.2019.1705598

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 11132

Puffer, M. K., Greenwald, R., & Elrod, D. E. (1998). A single session EMDR study with twenty traumatized children and adolescents. Traumatology, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.1037/h0101053

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 11135

Tang, T.-C., Yang, P., Yen, C.-F., & Liu, T.-L. (2015). Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing for treating psychological disturbances in Taiwanese adolescents who experienced Typhoon Morakot. The Kaohsiung Journal of Medical Sciences, 31(7), 363-369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjms.2015.04.013

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 11136

Behnammoghadam, M., Alamdari, A. K., Behnammoghadam, A., & Darban, F. (2015). Effect of Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) on depression in patients with myocardial infarction (MI). Global Journal of Health Science, 7(6), 258-262. https://doi.org/10.5539/gjhs.v7n6p258

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 11137

Behnammoghadam, M., Kheramine, S., Zoladl, M., Cooper, R. Z., & Shahini, S. (2019). Effect of Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) on severity of stress in emergency medical technicians. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 12, 289-296. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S190428

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 11139

Borji, M., Tarjoman, A., Abdi, A., & Otaghi, M. (2019). Efficacy of implementing home care using Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing in reducing stress of patients with gastrointestinal cancer. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention, 20(7), 1967-1971. https://doi.org/10.31557/APJCP.2019.20.7.1967

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 11141

Doering, S., Ohlmeier, M. C., Jongh, A., Hofmann, A., & Bisping, V. (2013). Efficacy of a trauma-focused treatment approach for dental phobia: A randomized clinical trial. European Journal of Oral Sciences, 121(6), 584-593. https://doi.org/10.1111/eos.12090

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 11142

Dunn, T. M., Schwartz, M., Hatfield, R. W., & Wiegele, M. (1996). Measuring effectiveness of Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) in non-clinical anxiety: A multi-subject, yoked-control design. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 27(3), 231-239. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0005-7916(96)00034-1

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 11147

Gosselin, P., & Matthews, W. J. (1995). Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing in the treatment of test anxiety: A study of the effects of expectancy and eye movement. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 26(4), 331-337. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7916(95)00038-0

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 11148

Hase, M., Schallmayer, S., & Sack, M. (2008). EMDR reprocessing of the addiction memory: Pretreatment, posttreatment, and 1-month follow-up. Journal of EMDR Practice and Research, 2(3), 170-179. https://doi.org/10.1891/1933-3196.2.3.170

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 11151

Hekmat, H., Groth, S., & Rogers, D. (1994). Pain ameliorating effect of eye movement desensitization. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 25(2), 121-129. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7916(94)90004-3

This study is ineligible for review because it does not report program or service impacts on an eligible target outcome (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.5).

Study 11152

Leer, A., Engelhard, I. M., & van den Hout, M. A. (2014). How eye movements in EMDR work: Changes in memory vividness and emotionality. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 45(3), 396-401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2014.04.004

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 11153

Markus, W., de Weert-van Oene, G. H., Becker, E. S., & DeJong, C. A. J. (2015). A multi-site randomized study to compare the effects of Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) added to TAU versus TAU to reduce craving and drinking behavior in alcohol dependent outpatients: Study protocol. BMC Psychiatry, 15, Article 51. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-015-0431-z

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 11154

Maxfield, L., & Melnyk, W. T. (2000). Single session treatment of test anxiety with Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR). International Journal of Stress Management, 7(2), 87-101. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009580101287

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 11155

Muris, P., & Merckelbach, H. (1997). Treating spider phobics with Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing: A controlled study. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 25(1), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1352465800015381

This study is ineligible for review because it does not report program or service impacts on an eligible target outcome (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.5).

Study 11157

Rathschlag, M., & Memmert, D. (2014). Reducing anxiety and enhancing physical performance by using an advanced version of EMDR: A pilot study. Brain and Behavior, 4(3), 348-355. https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.221

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 11158

Roos, C., Oord, S., Zijlstra, B., Lucassen, S., Perrin, S., Emmelkamp, P., & de Jongh, A. (2017). Comparison of Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing therapy, cognitive behavioral writing therapy, and wait‐list in pediatric posttraumatic stress disorder following single‐incident trauma: A multicenter randomized clinical trial. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 58(11), 1219-1228. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12768

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 11160

Saadat, S. H., Izadi, M., Ahmadi, K., & Shahyad, S. (2014). Non-pharmacologic treatments for fear of flying. International Journal of Travel Medicine & Global Health, 2(1), 31-37.

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 11161

Salehian, T., Saeedinejad, S., Behnammoghadam, M., Shafiee, M., Mohammadhossini, S., Behnammoghadam, Z., Behnammoghadam, A., Ebrahimpour, S., & Paymard, A. (2016). Efficacy of Eye Movements Desensitization and Reprocessing on the quality of life of the patients with myocardial infarction. Global Journal of Health Science, 8(10), 56100. https://doi.org/10.5539/gjhs.v8n10p112

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 11164

Valedi, S., Alimoradi, Z., MoradiBaglooei, M., Pakpour, A. H., Ranjbaran, M., & Chegini, V. (2019). Investigating the effect of Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing on pain intensity in patients with primary dysmenorrhea: A protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials, 20(1), Article 404. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3507-0

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 11166

Abbasnejad, M., Mahani, K. N., & Zamyad, A. (2007). Efficacy of 'Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing' in reducing anxiety and unpleasant feelings due to earthquake experience. Psychological Research, 9(3-4), 104-117.

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 11168

Acarturk, C., Konuk, E., Cetinkaya, M., Senay, I., Sijbrandij, M., Gulen, B., & Cuijpers, P. (2016). The efficacy of Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing for post-traumatic stress disorder and depression among Syrian refugees: Results of a randomized controlled trial. Psychological Medicine, 46(12), 2583-2593. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291716001070

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 11169

Ahmadi, K., Hazrati, M., Ahmadizadeh, M., & Noohi, S. (2015). REM desensitization as a new therapeutic method for post-traumatic stress disorder: A randomized controlled trial. Acta Medica Indonesiana, 47(2), 111-119.

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 11171

Baas, M. A. M., Stramrood, C. A. I., Dijksman, L. M., de Jongh, A., & van Pampus, M. G. (2017). The OptiMUM-study: EMDR therapy in pregnant women with posttraumatic stress disorder after previous childbirth and pregnant women with fear of childbirth: Design of a multicentre randomized controlled trial. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 8(1), 1293315. https://doi.org/10.1080/20008198.2017.1293315

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 11172

Bossini, L., Santarnecchi, E., Casolaro, I., Koukouna, D., Caterini, C., Cecchini, F., Fortini, V., Vatti, G., Marino, D., Fernandez, I., Rossi, A., & Fagiolini, A. (2017). Morphovolumetric changes after EMDR treatment in drug-naïve PTSD patients. Rivista di Psichiatria, 52(1), 24-31. https://doi.org/10.1708/2631.27051

This study is ineligible for review because it does not report program or service impacts on an eligible target outcome (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.5).

Study 11174

Brennstuhl, M.-J., Tarquinio, C., Strub, L., Montel, S., Rydberg, J. A., & Kapoula, Z. (2013). Benefits of immediate EMDR vs. eclectic therapy intervention for victims of physical violence and accidents at the workplace: A pilot study. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 34(6), 425-434. https://doi.org/10.3109/01612840.2012.759633

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 11175

Carletto, S., Borghi, M., Bertino, G., Oliva, F., Cavallo, M., Hofmann, A., Zennaro, A., Malucchi, S., & Ostacoli, L. (2016). Treating post-traumatic stress disorder in patients with multiple sclerosis: A randomized controlled trial comparing the efficacy of Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing and relaxation therapy. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article 526. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00526

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 11176

Carletto, S., Oliva, F., Barnato, M., Antonelli, T., Cardia, A., Mazzaferro, P., Raho, C., Ostacoli, L., Fernandez, I., & Pagani, M. (2018). EMDR as add-on treatment for psychiatric and traumatic symptoms in patients with substance use disorder. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 2333. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02333

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 11177

Carletto, S., Porcaro, C., Settanta, C., Vizzari, V., Stanizzo, M. R., Oliva, F., Torta, R., Fernandez, I., Moja, M. C., Pagani, M., & Ostacoli, L. (2019). Neurobiological features and response to Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder in patients with breast cancer. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 10(1), Article 1600832. https://doi.org/10.1080/20008198.2019.1600832

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 11179

Covers, M. L. V., De Jongh, A., Huntjens, R. J. C., De Roos, C., Van Den Hout, M., & Bicanic, I. A. E. (2019). Early intervention with Eye Movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing (EMDR) therapy to reduce the severity of posttraumatic stress symptoms in recent rape victims: Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 10(1), Article 1632021. https://doi.org/10.1080/20008198.2019.1632021

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 11180

Cusack, K., & Spates, C. R. (1999). The cognitive dismantling of Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 13(1-2), 87-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0887-6185(98)00041-3

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 11181

Cvetek, R. (2008). EMDR treatment of distressful experiences that fail to meet the criteria for PTSD. Journal of EMDR Practice and Research, 2(1), 2-14. https://doi.org/10.1891/1933-3196.2.1.2

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 11182

de Bont, P. A., van den Berg, D. P., van der Vleugel, B. M., de Roos, C., Mulder, C. L., Becker, E. S., de Jongh, A., van der Gaag, M., & van Minnen, A. (2013). A multi-site single blind clinical study to compare the effects of prolonged exposure, Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing and waiting list on patients with a current diagnosis of psychosis and co morbid post traumatic stress disorder: Study protocol for the randomized controlled trial Treating Trauma in Psychosis. Trials, 14(1), Article 151. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-14-151

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 11184

de Jongh, A., Holmshaw, M., Carswell, W., & van Wijk, A. (2011). Usefulness of a trauma-focused treatment approach for travel phobia. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 18(2), 124-137. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.680

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 11188

Every-Palmer, S., Flewett, T., Dean, S., Hansby, O., Colman, A., Weatherall, M., & Bell, E. (2019). Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) therapy for posttraumatic stress disorder in adults with serious mental illness within forensic and rehabilitation services: A study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials, 20(1), Article 642. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3760-2

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 11189

Farrell, D. P., Keenan, P. S., Ali, M. W., Bilal, S., Tareen, S. M., Keenan, L., & Rana, M. H. (2011). Training Pakistani mental health workers in EMDR in the aftermath of the 2005 earthquake in Northern Pakistan. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 24(2), 127-137. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515070.2011.589599

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 11190

Galinski, M., Revel, P., Valdenaire, G., Gil-Jardiné, C., Lagarde, E., Ribéreau-Gayon, R., Salmi, L.-R., Al Joboory, S., Jammes, J. T. S., Régis, C. A., Tazarourte, K., Durand, G., & Poulet, E. (2018). Prevention of post-concussion-like symptoms in patients presenting at the emergency room, early single eye movement desensitization, and reprocessing intervention versus usual care: Study protocol for a two-center randomized controlled trial. Trials, 19(1), Article 555. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-2902-2

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 11192

George, A., Thilly, N., Rydberg, J. A., Luz, R., & Spitz, E. (2013). Effectiveness of Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing treatment in post-traumatic stress disorder after childbirth: A randomized controlled trial protocol. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 92(7), 866-868. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.12132

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 11193

Gerhardt, A., Leisner, S., Hartmann, M., Janke, S., Seidler, G. H., Eich, W., & Tesarz, J. (2016). Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing vs. treatment-as-usual for non-specific chronic back pain patients with psychological trauma: A randomized controlled pilot study. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 7, Article 201. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2016.00201

Tesarz, J., Gerhardt, A., Leisner, S., Janke, S., Hartmann, M., Seidler, G. H., & Eich, W. (2013). Effects of Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) on non-specific chronic back pain: A randomized controlled trial with additional exploration of the underlying mechanisms. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 14(1), Article 256. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-14-256

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 11194

Gil-Jardiné, C., Evrard, G., Al Joboory, S., Tortes Saint Jammes, J., Masson, F., Ribéreau-Gayon, R., Galinski, M., Salmi, L.-R., Revel, P., Régis, C. A., Valdenaire, G., & Lagarde, E. (2018). Emergency room intervention to prevent post concussion-like symptoms and post-traumatic stress disorder. A pilot randomized controlled study of a brief Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing intervention versus reassurance or usual care. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 103, 229-236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2018.05.024

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 11195

Gonzalez-Vazquez, A. I., Rodriguez-Lago, L., Seoane-Pillado, M. T., Fernández, I., García-Guerrero, F., & Santed-Germán, M. A. (2018). The progressive approach to EMDR group therapy for complex trauma and dissociation: A case-control study. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 2377. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02377

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 11196

Grainger, R. D., Levin, C., Allen-Byrd, L., Doctor, R. M., & Lee, H. (1997). An empirical evaluation of Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) with survivors of a natural disaster. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 10(4), 665-671. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1024806105473

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 11199

Jayawickreme, N., Cahill, S. P., Riggs, D. S., Rauch, S. A. M., Resick, P. A., Rothbaum, B. O., & Foa, E. B. (2014). Primum non nocere (first do no harm): Symptom worsening and improvement in female assault victims after prolonged exposure for PTSD. Depression and Anxiety, 31(5), 412-419. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.22225

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 11203

Largo-Marsh, L., & Spates, C. R. (2002). The effects of writing therapy in comparison to EMD/R on traumatic stress: The relationship between hypnotizability and client expectancy to outcome. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33(6), 581-586. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.33.6.581

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 11204

Lenferink, L. I. M., Piersma, E., de Keijser, J., Smid, G. E., & Boelen, P. A. (2017). Cognitive therapy and Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing for reducing psychopathology among disaster-bereaved individuals: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 8(1), Article 1388710. https://doi.org/10.1080/20008198.2017.1388710

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 11207

Markus, W., Hornsveld, H. K., Burk, W. J., de Weert-van Oene, G. H., Becker, E. S., & DeJong, C. A. J. (2020). Addiction‐focused Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing therapy as an adjunct to regular outpatient treatment for alcohol use disorder: Results from a randomized clinical trial. Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research, 44(1), 272-283. https://doi.org/10.1111/acer.14249

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 11208

Matthijssen, S. J. M. A., van Beerschoten, L. M., de Jongh, A., Klugkist, I. G., & van den Hout, M. A. (2019). Effects of "Visual Schema Displacement Therapy" (VSDT), an abbreviated EMDR protocol and a control condition on emotionality and vividness of aversive memories: Two critical analogue studies. Journal of Behavior Therapy & Experimental Psychiatry, 63, 48-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2018.11.006

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 11209

McLay, R. N., Webb-Murphy, J. A., Fesperman, S. F., Delaney, E. M., Gerard, S. K., Roesch, S. C., Nebeker, B. J., Pandzic, I., Vishnyak, E. A., & Johnston, S. L. (2016). Outcomes from Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing in active-duty service members with posttraumatic stress disorder. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice and Policy, 8(6), 702-708. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0000120

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 11210

Moreno-Alcázar, A., Radua, J., Landín-Romero, R., Blanco, L., Madre, M., Reinares, M., Comes, M., Jiménez, E., Crespo, J. M., Vieta, E., Pérez, V., Novo, P., Doñate, M., Cortizo, R., Valiente-Gómez, A., Lupo, W., McKenna, P. J., Pomarol-Clotet, E., & Amann, B. L. (2017). Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing therapy versus supportive therapy in affective relapse prevention in bipolar patients with a history of trauma: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials, 18, Article 160. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-1910-y

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 11211

Nijdam, M. J., Gersons, B. P. R., Reitsma, J. B., de Jongh, A., & Olff, M. (2012). Brief eclectic psychotherapy v Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing therapy for post-traumatic stress disorder: Randomised controlled trial. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 200(3), 224-231. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.111.099234

Nijdam, M. J., de Vries, G.-J., Gersons, B. P. R., & Olff, M. (2015). Response to psychotherapy for posttraumatic stress disorder: The role of pretreatment verbal memory performance. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 76(8), e1023-e1028. https://doi.org/10.4088/JCP.14m09438

Nijdam, M. J., Martens, I. J. M., Reitsma, J. B., Gersons, B. P. R., & Olff, M. (2018). Neurocognitive functioning over the course of trauma-focused psychotherapy for PTSD: Changes in verbal memory and executive functioning. The British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 57(4), 436-452. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjc.12183

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 11215

Raboni, M. R., Alonso, F. F. D., Tufik, S., & Suchecki, D. (2014). Improvement of mood and sleep alterations in posttraumatic stress disorder patients by Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 8, Article 209. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00209

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 11221

Russell, M. C., Silver, S. M., Rogers, S., & Darnell, J. N. (2007). Responding to an identified need: A joint department of defense/department of veterans affairs training program in eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) for clinicians providing trauma services. International Journal of Stress Management, 14(1), 61-71. https://doi.org/10.1037/1072-5245.14.1.61

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 11222

Scheck, M. 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(1), 25-44. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1024400931106

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 11223

Schäfer, I., Chuey-Ferrer, L., Hofmann, A., Lieberman, P., Mainusch, G., & Lotzin, A. (2017). Effectiveness of EMDR in patients with substance use disorder and comorbid PTSD: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. BMC Psychiatry, 17(1), 95. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-017-1255-9

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 11224

Shapiro, E., Laub, B., & Rosenblat, O. (2018). Early EMDR intervention following intense rocket attacks on a town: A randomised clinical trial. Clinical Neuropsychiatry: Journal of Treatment Evaluation, 15(3), 194-205.

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 11225

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(1), 37-42. https://doi.org/10.1080/16506079609456006

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 11227

Silver, S. M., Rogers, S., Knipe, J., & Colelli, G. (2005). EMDR therapy following the 9/11 terrorist attacks: A community-based intervention project in New York City. International Journal of Stress Management, 12(1), 29-42. https://doi.org/10.1037/1072-5245.12.1.29

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 11228

Sprang, G. (2001). The use of eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) in the treatment of traumatic stress and complicated mourning: Psychological and behavioral outcomes. Research on Social Work Practice, 11(3), 300-320. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F104973150101100302

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 11230

Tarquinio, C., Rotonda, C., Houllé, W. A., Montel, S., Rydberg, J. A., Minary, L., Dellucci, H., Tarquinio, P., Fayard, A., & Alla, F. (2016). Early psychological preventive intervention for workplace violence: A randomized controlled explorative and comparative study between EMDR-Recent Event and Critical Incident Stress Debriefing. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 37(11), 787-799. https://doi.org/10.1080/01612840.2016.1224282

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 11231

Taylor, S., Thordarson, D. S., Maxfield, L., Fedoroff, I. C., Lovell, K., & Ogrodniczuk, J. (2003). Comparative efficacy, speed, and adverse effects of three PTSD treatments: Exposure therapy, EMDR, and relaxation training. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(2), 330-338. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006x.71.2.330

Taylor, S. (2003). Outcome predictors for three PTSD treatments: Exposure therapy, EMDR, and relaxation training. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 17(2), 149-161. https://doi.org/10.1891/jcop.17.2.149.57432

Stapleton, J. A., Taylor, S., & Asmundson, G. J. G. (2006). Effects of three PTSD treatments on anger and guilt: Exposure therapy, eye movement desensitization and reprocessing, and relaxation training. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 19(1), 19-28. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.20095

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 11232

Ter Heide, F. J. J., Mooren, T. M., Kleijn, W., de Jongh, A., & Kleber, R. J. (2011). EMDR versus stabilisation in traumatised asylum seekers and refugees: Results of a pilot study. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 2(1), Article 5881. https://doi.org/10.3402/ejpt.v2i0.5881

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 11233

Ter Heide, F. J. J., Mooren, T. M., van de Schoot, R., de Jongh, A., & Kleber, R. J. (2016). Eye Movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing therapy v. stabilisation as usual for refugees: Randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Psychiatry, 209(4), 311-318. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.115.167775

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 11235

Valiente-Gómez, A., Moreno-Alcázar, A., Radua, J., Hogg, B., Blanco, L., Lupo, W., Pérez, V., Robles-Martínez, M., Torrens, M., & Amann, B. L. (2019). A multicenter phase II rater-blinded randomized controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of Eye Movement Desensitization Reprocessing therapy vs. treatment as usual in patients with substance use disorder and history of psychological trauma: A study design and protocol. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 10, Article 108. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00108

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 11236

Valiente-Gómez, A., Pujol, N., Moreno-Alcázar, A., Radua, J., Monteagudo-Gimeno, E., Gardoki-Souto, I., Hogg, B., Álvarez, M. J., Safont, G., Lupo, W., Pérez, V., & Amann, B. L. (2020). A multicenter phase II RCT to compare the effectiveness of EMDR versus TAU in patients with a first-episode psychosis and psychological trauma: A protocol design. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 10, Article 1023. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2019.01023

Valiente-Gómez, A., Pujol, N., Moreno-Alcázar, A., Radua, J., Monteagudo-Gimeno, E., Gardoki-Souto, I., Hogg, B., Álvarez, M. J., Safont, G., Lupo, W., Pérez, V., & Amann, B. L. (2020). Corrigendum: A multicenter phase II RCT to compare the effectiveness of EMDR versus TAU in patients with a first-episode psychosis and psychological trauma: A protocol design. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 11, Article 283. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00283

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 11237

van den Hout, M. A., & Engelhard, I. M. (2012). How does EMDR work? Journal of Experimental Psychopathology, 3(5), 724-738. https://doi.org/10.5127/jep.028212

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 11239

Vaughan, K., Armstrong, M. S., 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 and Experimental Psychiatry, 25(4), 283-291. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7916(94)90036-1

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 11240

Wilson, S. A., Becker, L. A., & Tinker, R. H. (1995). Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) treatment for psychologically traumatized individuals. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63(6), 928-937. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-006x.63.6.928

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 11241

Wilson, D. L., Silver, S. M., Covi, W. G., & Foster, S. (1996). Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing: Effectiveness and autonomic correlates. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 27(3), 219-229. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0005-7916(96)00026-2

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 11244

Ironson, G., Freud, B., Strauss, J. L., & Williams, J. (2002). Comparison for two treatments for traumatic stress: A community-based study of EMDR and prolonged exposure. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58(1), 113-128. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.1132

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 11246

Meysner, L., Cotter, P., & Lee, C. W. (2016). Evaluating the efficacy of EMDR with grieving individuals: A randomized control trial. Journal of EMDR Practice and Research, 10(1), 2-12. https://doi.org/10.1891/1933-3196.10.1.2

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 11247

Khan, A., Khan, S., & Shah, S. T. (2019). Efficacy of Eye movement Desensitization & Reprocessing versus cognitive behavioral therapy in post-traumatic stress and depressive symptoms: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications, 16(2019), Article 100439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conctc.2019.100439

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 11248

Ray, P., & Page, A. C. (2002). A single session of hypnosis and Eye Movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing (EMDR) in the treatment of chronic pain. Australian Journal of Clinical & Experimental Hypnosis, 30(2), 170-178.

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 11249

Wanders, F., Serra, M., & de Jongh, A. (2008). EMDR versus CBT for children with self-esteem and behavioral problems: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of EMDR Practice and Research, 2(3), 180-189. https://doi.org/10.1891/1933-3196.2.3.180

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 11250

Karatzias, A., Power, K., McGoldrick, T., Brown, K., Buchanan, R., Sharp, D., & Swanson, V. (2007). Predicting treatment outcome on three measures for post-traumatic stress disorder. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 257(1), 40-46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00406-006-0682-2

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 11251

Faretta, E., Borsato, T., Civilotti, C., Fernandez, I., & Pagani, M. (2016). EMDR and CBT: A comparative clinical study with oncological patients. Journal of EMDR Practice and Research, 10(3), 215-227. https://doi.org/10.1891/1933-3196.10.3.215

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 11252

Horst, F., Den Oudsten, B., Zijlstra, W., de Jongh, A., Lobbestael, J., & De Vries, J. (2017). Cognitive behavioral therapy vs. Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing for treating panic disorder: A randomized controlled trial. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 1409. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01409

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 11253

van Denderen, M., de Keijser, J., Stewart, R., & Boelen, P. A. (2018). Treating complicated grief and posttraumatic stress in homicidally bereaved individuals: A randomized controlled trial. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 25(4), 497-508. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.2183

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 11254

Graca, J., Palmer, G., & Occhietti, K. (2014). Psychotherapeutic interventions for symptom reduction in veterans with PTSD: An observational study in a residential clinical setting. Journal of Loss & Trauma, 19(6), 558-567. https://doi.org/10.1080/15325024.2013.810441

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 11255

Nazari, H., Momeni, N., Jariani, M., & Tarrahi, M. J. (2011). Comparison of Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing with citalopram in treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder. International Journal of Psychiatry in Clinical Practice, 15(4), 270-274. https://doi.org/10.3109/13651501.2011.590210

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 11256

Marsden, Z., Lovell, K., Blore, D., Ali, S., & Delgadillo, J. (2018). A randomized controlled trial comparing EMDR and CBT for obsessive–compulsive disorder. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 25(1), e10-e18. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.2120

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 11257

Greenwald, R., McClintock, S. D., Jarecki, K., & Monaco, A. J. (2015). A comparison of Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing and progressive counting among therapists in training. Traumatology, 21(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1037/trm0000011

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 11258

Nordahl, H. M., Halvorsen, J. Ø., Hjemdal, O., Ternava, M. R., & Wells, A. (2018). Metacognitive therapy vs. Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing for posttraumatic stress disorder: Study protocol for a randomized superiority trial. Trials, 19, Article 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-2404-7

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 11259

Deisenhofer, A. K., Delgadillo, J., Rubel, J. A., Böhnke, J. R., Zimmermann, D., Schwartz, B., Lutz, W., & Deisenhofer, A.-K. (2018). Individual treatment selection for patients with posttraumatic stress disorder. Depression & Anxiety, 35(6), 541-550. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.22755

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 11260

Karatzias, T., Power, K., Brown, K., McGoldrick, T., Begum, M., Young, J., Loughran, P., Chouliara, Z., & Adams, S. (2011). A controlled comparison of the effectiveness and efficiency of two psychological therapies for posttraumatic stress disorder: Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing vs. emotional freedom techniques. Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease, 199(6), 372-378. https://doi.org/10.1097/nmd.0b013e31821cd262

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 11261

Demirci, O. O., Sağaltıcı, E., Yıldırım, A., & Boysan, M. (2017). Comparison of Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) and duloxetine treatment outcomes in women patients with somatic symptom disorder. Sleep & Hypnosis, 19(3), 70-77. https://doi.org/10.5350/Sleep.Hypn.2017.19.0146

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 11262

Diehle, J., Opmeer, B., Boer, F., Mannarino, A., & Lindauer, R. (2015). Trauma-Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy or Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing: What works in children with posttraumatic stress symptoms? A randomized controlled trial. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 24(2), 227-236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-014-0572-5

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 11263

Johnson, D. R., & Lubin, H. (2006). The counting method: Applying the rule of parsimony to the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder. Traumatology, 12(1), 83-99. https://doi.org/10.1177/153476560601200106

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 11264

Lee, C., Gavriel, H., Drummond, P., Richards, J., & Greenwald, R. (2002). Treatment of PTSD: Stress inoculation training with prolonged exposure compared to EMDR. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58(9), 1071-1089. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.10039

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 11265

Minelli, A., Zampieri, E., Sacco, C., Bazzanella, R., Mezzetti, N., Tessari, E., Barlati, S., & Bortolomasi, M. (2019). Clinical efficacy of trauma-focused psychotherapies in treatment-resistant depression (TRD) in-patients: A randomized, controlled pilot-study. Psychiatry Research, 273, 567-574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2019.01.070

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 11266

Stevens, M. J., & Florell, D. W. (1998). EMDR as a treatment for test anxiety. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 18(4), 285-296. https://doi.org/10.2190/FJWQ-HKQQ-UEJW-6VLH

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 11267

Carbone, D. J. (2008). Treatment of gay men for post-traumatic stress disorder resulting from social ostracism and ridicule: Cognitive behavior therapy and Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing approaches. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37(2), 305-316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-007-9239-3

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 11269

Capezzani, L., Ostacoli, L., Cavallo, M., Carletto, S., Fernandez, I., Solomon, R., Pagani, M., & Cantelmi, T. (2013). EMDR and CBT for cancer patients: Comparative study of effects on PTSD, anxiety, and depression. Journal of EMDR Practice and Research, 7(3), 134-143. https://doi.org/10.1891/1933-3196.7.3.134

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 11270

Griffioen, B. T., van der Vegt, A. A., de Groot, I. W., & de Jongh, A. (2017). The effect of EMDR and CBT on low self-esteem in a general psychiatric population: A randomized controlled trial. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 1910. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01910

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 11271

Carbonell, J. L., & Figley, C. (1999). A systematic clinical demonstration of promising PTSD treatment approaches. Traumatology, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/153476569900500106

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 11272

Leiner, A. S., Kearns, M. C., Jackson, J. L., Astin, M. C., & Rothbaum, B. O. (2012). Avoidant coping and treatment outcome in rape-related posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 80(2), 317-321. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026814

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 11273

Muris, P., & Merckelbach, H. (1997). Treating spider phobics with Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing: A controlled study. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 25(1), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1352465800015381

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 11274

Jarero, I., Artigas, L., & Luber, M. (2011). The EMDR protocol for recent critical incidents: Application in a disaster mental health continuum of care context. Journal of EMDR Practice and Research, 5(3), 82-94. https://doi.org/10.1891/1933-3196.5.3.82

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 11275

Chiorino, V., Cattaneo, M. C., Macchi, E. A., Salerno, R., Roveraro, S., Bertolucci, G. G., Mosca, F., Fumagalli, M., Cortinovis, I., Carletto, S., & Fernandez, I. (2019). The EMDR Recent Birth Trauma Protocol: A pilot randomised clinical trial after traumatic childbirth. Psychology & Health, 35(7), 795-810. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2019.1699088

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 11276

Passoni, S., Curinga, T., Toraldo, A., Berlingeri, M., Fernandez, I., & Bottini, G. (2018). Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing Integrative Group Treatment Protocol (EMDR-IGTP) applied to caregivers of patients with dementia. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 967. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00967

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 11277

Roberts, A. K. P. (2018). The effects of the EMDR group traumatic episode protocol with cancer survivors. Journal of EMDR Practice and Research, 12(3), 105-117. https://doi.org/10.1891/1933-3196.12.3.105

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 11278

Yurtsever, A., Konuk, E., Akyüz, T., Zat, Z., Tükel, F., Çetinkaya, M., Savran, C., & Shapiro, E. (2018). An Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) group intervention for Syrian refugees with post-traumatic stress symptoms: Results of a randomized controlled trial. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 493. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00493

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 11279

Jarero, I., & Uribe, S. (2011). The EMDR protocol for recent critical incidents: Brief report of an application in a human massacre situation. Journal of EMDR Practice and Research, 5(4), 156-165. https://doi.org/10.1891/1933-3196.5.4.156

Jarero, I., & Uribe, S. (2012). The EMDR protocol for recent critical incidents: Follow-up report of an application in a human massacre situation. Journal of EMDR Practice and Research, 6(2), 50-61. https://doi.org/10.1891/1933-3196.6.2.50

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 11280

Lytle, R. A., Hazlett-Stevens, H., & Borkovec, T. D. (2002). Efficacy of Eye Movement Desensitization in the treatment of cognitive intrusions related to a past stressful event. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 16(3), 273-288. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0887-6185(02)00099-3

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 11281

Foley, T., & Spates, C. R. (1995). Eye movement desensitization of public-speaking anxiety: A partial dismantling. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 26(4), 321-329. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7916(95)00048-8

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 11282

Jarero, I., Givaudan, M., & Osorio, A. (2018). Randomized controlled trial on the provision of the EMDR integrative group treatment protocol adapted for ongoing traumatic stress to female patients with cancer-related posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms. Journal of EMDR Practice and Research, 12(3), 94-104. https://doi.org/10.1891/1933-3196.12.3.94

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 11283

Jarero, I., Amaya, C., Givaudan, M., & Miranda, A. (2013). EMDR individual protocol for paraprofessional use: A randomized controlled trial with first responders. Journal of EMDR Practice and Research, 7(2), 55-64. https://doi.org/10.1891/1933-3196.7.2.55

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 11285

Shapiro, E., & Laub, B. (2015). Early EMDR intervention following a community critical incident: A randomized clinical trial. Journal of EMDR Practice and Research, 9(1), 17-27. https://doi.org/10.1891/1933-3196.9.1.17

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 11286

Saltini, A., Rebecchi, D., Callerame, C., Fernandez, I., Bergonzini, E., & Starace, F. (2018). Early Eye Movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing (EMDR) intervention in a disaster mental health care context. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 23(3), 285-294. https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2017.1344255

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 11287

Lehnung, M., Shapiro, E., Schreiber, M., & Hofmann, A. (2017). Evaluating the EMDR group traumatic episode protocol with refugees: A field study. Journal of EMDR Practice and Research, 11(3), 129-138. https://doi.org/10.1891/1933-3196.11.3.129

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 11289

Merckelbach, H., Hogervorst, E., Kampman, M., & de Jongh, A. (1994). Effects of 'eye movement desensitization' on emotional processing in normal subjects. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 22(4), 331-335. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1352465800013217

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 11290

Marcus, S. V. (2008). Phase 1 of integrated EMDR: An abortive treatment for migraine headaches. Journal of EMDR Practice and Research, 2(1), 15-25. https://doi.org/10.1891/1933-3196.2.1.15

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 11291

Bauman, W., & Melnyk, W. T. (1994). A controlled comparison of eye movements and finger tapping in the treatment of test anxiety. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 25(1), 29-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7916(94)90060-4

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 11292

Jarero, I., Uribe, S., Artigas, L., & Givaudan, M. (2015). EMDR protocol for recent critical incidents: A randomized controlled trial in a technological disaster context. Journal of EMDR Practice and Research, 9(4), 166-173. https://doi.org/10.1891/1933-3196.9.4.166

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).