First do no harm, and then do some good: Science and professional responsibility in the response to disaster and trauma

Qualitative reviews and meta-analyses of peer-reviewed EMDR outcome studies have consistently found that there is overwhelming evidence that eye movements are neither a necessary nor useful component of the general clinical protocol (e.g., Devilly, 2002; Lohr, Lilienfeld, Tolin, & Herbert, 1999; Davidson & Parker, 2001); there is strong and consistent evidence that EMDR is better than no treatment and ineffective treatments, but no more effective than other treatments that use some aspect of exposure therapy (Devilly, 2002; McNally, 1999); and there is growing evidence that a cognitive-behavioral treatment including exposure is superior to EMDR for long-term effectiveness (Devilly & Spence, 1999; Taylor, Thodarson, Maxfield, & Fedoroff, 2003). In sum, “what is effective in EMDR is not new, and what is new is[not effective” (McNally, 1999, p. 619. [Excerpt]

Newsletter

English

Jeffrey M. Lohr
Grant Devilly
Scott o. Lilienfeld
Bunmi O. Olatunji

Lohr, J. M., Devilly, G., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Olatunji, B. O. (2006). First do no harm, and then do some good: Science and professional responsibility in the response to disaster and trauma. the Behavior Therapist, 29, 131-135