Summary of findings 4. EMDR compared with Waitlist/Usual Care for chronic post‐traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in adults.
| EMDR compared with Waitlist/Usual Care for chronic post‐traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in adults | ||||||
| Patient or population: Adults with PTSD for at least 3 months Settings: Primary care, community, outpatient Intervention: Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) Comparison: Waitlist/Usual Care | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of Participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Waitlist/Usual Care | EMDR | |||||
| Severity of PTSD symptoms ‐ Clinician‐rated | The mean severity of PTSD symptoms ‐ clinician in the intervention groups was | 1.17 standard deviations lower (2.04 to 0.30 lower) | 183 (6 studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2,3 | ||
| Leaving study early for any reason | Study population | RR 1.05 (0.62 to 1.79) | 227 (7 studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,3 | ||
| 178 per 1000 | 188 per 1000 (104 to 313) | |||||
| Moderate | ||||||
| 172 per 1000 | 182 per 1000 (101 to 305) | |||||
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; RR: risk ratio; | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate. | ||||||
1Some studies were judged to pose a high risk of bias 2Unexplained heterogeneity 3Small sample sizes