↓ Skip to main content

Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing vs. Treatment-as-Usual for Non-Specific Chronic Back Pain Patients with Psychological Trauma: A Randomized Controlled Pilot Study

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychiatry, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
7 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
128 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing vs. Treatment-as-Usual for Non-Specific Chronic Back Pain Patients with Psychological Trauma: A Randomized Controlled Pilot Study
Published in
Frontiers in Psychiatry, December 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyt.2016.00201
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andreas Gerhardt, Sabine Leisner, Mechthild Hartmann, Susanne Janke, Günter H. Seidler, Wolfgang Eich, Jonas Tesarz

Abstract

Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR)-an evidence-based approach to eliminate emotional distress from traumatic experiences-was recently suggested for the treatment of chronic pain. The aim of this study was to estimate preliminary efficacy of a pain-focused EMDR intervention for the treatment of non-specific chronic back pain (CBP). Randomized controlled pilot study. 40 non-specific CBP (nsCBP) patients reporting previous experiences of psychological trauma were consecutively recruited from outpatient tertiary care pain centers. After baseline assessment, patients were randomized to intervention or control group (1:1). The intervention group received 10 sessions standardized pain-focused EMDR in addition to treatment-as-usual (TAU). The control group received TAU alone. The primary outcome was preliminary efficacy, measured by pain intensity, disability, and treatment satisfaction from the patients' perspective. Clinical relevance of changes was determined according to the established recommendations. Assessments were conducted at the baseline, posttreatment, and at a 6-month follow-up. Intention-to-treat analysis with last observation carried forward method was used. Registered with http://ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01850875). Estimated effect sizes (between-group, pooled SD) for pain intensity and disability were d = 0.79 (CI95%: 0.13, 1.42) and d = 0.39 (CI95%: -0.24, 1.01) posttreatment, and d = 0.50 (CI95%: 0.14, 1.12) and d = 0.14 (CI95%: -0.48, 0.76) at 6-month follow-up. Evaluation on individual patient basis showed that about 50% of the patients in the intervention group improved clinically relevant and also rated their situation as clinically satisfactory improved, compared to 0 patients in the control group. There is preliminary evidence that pain-focused EMDR might be useful for nsCBP patients with previous experiences of psychological trauma, with benefits for pain intensity maintained over 6 months.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 128 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 128 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 13%
Student > Bachelor 15 12%
Other 14 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 9%
Other 26 20%
Unknown 33 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 39 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 10%
Neuroscience 6 5%
Social Sciences 6 5%
Other 9 7%
Unknown 41 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 February 2018.
All research outputs
#2,078,085
of 24,063,285 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#1,187
of 11,296 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,988
of 428,209 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#10
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,063,285 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,296 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 428,209 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.