Skip to main content
. 2013 Dec 13;2013(12):CD003388. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003388.pub4

Devilly 1998.

Methods Randomised controlled trial
Participants 51 male combat veterans with DSM‐III‐R PTSD in Australia
Interventions 12 sessions of EMDR (n = 19) vs biofeedback‐assisted relaxation (n = 16) vs routine clinical care (n = 16) (all interventions included in meta‐analyses)
Outcomes Mississippi scale, PTSD symptom scale, IES, STAI, BDI
Notes Therapist trained by Francine Shapiro. No mention of an assessment of treatment adherence.
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Comment: The method of sequence generation was not reported.
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Comment: There is no mention of any measures taken to conceal allocation.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes High risk Comment: There were no reasons given for drop‐outs (6 drop‐outs from EMDR, 4 drop‐outs from relaxation and 6 drop‐outs from usual care). Data from the completers were analysed.
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk Comment: All specified outcomes were reported,
Other bias Low risk There were no other obvious sources of bias.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes High risk Comment: Participants were aware of their allocation.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Comment: All measures were self‐reported and administered by post.