Accelerated Resolution Therapy??? Anyone Know Anything About This?

[anthony]

My two cents.

One study does not make a therapy relevant or any good for PTSD. Firstly, lets start looking at the published study in detail shall we? This study doesn't make results empirical, by any standard.

I have attached the study published.

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is a prevalent, disabling anxiety disorder. This prospective cohort study reports on a new exposure-based therapy known as Accelerated Resolution Therapy (ART®) that incorporates the use of eye movements administered in a brief treatment period (1–5 one-hour sessions within three weeks). Eighty adults aged 21–60 years with symptoms of PTSD were recruited from the Tampa Bay area.

Lets first pull apart the above. Firstly, another person attempting to rebrand "Exposure Therapy", specifically, EMDR actually, as it is classified as exposure therapy. Eye movements have also been empirically validated as useless in the administering of the therapy. A single ART study of someone trying to make a name for themselves, does not unfortunately change the empirical data on this.

Secondly, it used people with"PTSD Symptoms" and not diagnosed PTSD sufferers. That doesn't even mean it treats PTSD as claimed, but instead can be used to treat depression, anxiety, etc, as symptoms, not as PTSD the disorder, which is a far worse culmination of many further aspects beyond just depression and anxiety.

The entry scale used was not the recommended scale for PTSD assessment, instead it was an all-rounder scale that looks for symptoms off: "Major Depressive Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Panic Disorder, PTSD, Alcohol Abuse/Dependence, Drug Abuse/Dependence, Psychosis, Bulimia/Binge-Eating Disorder, Somatization Disorder, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, Social Phobia, Hypochondriasis, and Agoraphobia."

Whoever did this study, and specifically targeted PTSD for notoriety, should have done a bit more research and put in some further time and assessment of the participants, using the globally approved PTSD assessment scales, not some nonsense one. The purpose of the PDSQ is to assess for comorbidity symptoms, not a primary diagnostic assessment.

The study clearly stated: "The instruments used in this study measured symptom burden, as opposed to deriving formal diagnoses."

How do the authors even want anyone to take that study seriously, when it can't even be accurate with its claimed title, of being an effective treatment for PTSD.

Sorry JMR, I suspect you have some type of involvement with this study and are trying to boost its prominence in the world, when in fact, the study has shot itself in the foot as completely useless and another die hard attempt to copy existing treatments and rebrand them, then claim success.

People come here wanting to be taken seriously, yet this has yet to show any serious evolution towards helping PTSD, especially when it attempts to compare itself to the only approved treatments for PTSD, showing a base score of 50% success for one used, let alone when combined, showing scores of 80% plus mean averages to successfully treat PTSD, not just symptoms.

 

[jmr05009]

You're right, one study is not as good as 10 studies or 100 studies, but that still doesn't mean that it should be bashed by people who don't know anything about it. At least you did your research.

As for your claim about formal diagnosis... It's true that would be ideal in a perfect world, but in a more practical sense discomfort is more of subjective and can't really be quantified by a psychotherapist or psychologist.

 

[Hashi]

As for your claim about formal diagnosis... It's true that would be ideal in a perfect world, but in a more practical sense discomfort is more of subjective and can't really be quantified by a psychotherapist or psychologist.

I find this a very strange statement. There's a difference between an overall diagnosis - for which there are diagnostic criteria for PTSD, as for other psychological conditions - and assessment of severity of symptoms over time. Since the study states it's to reduce symptoms of PTSD, I can't understand why a PTSD diagnosis by a clinician wasn't a requirement for inclusion. If the study is about relieving "discomfort" or anxiety, it should state this and no more.

I've read anthony's attachment and I agree that the study, in relation to PTSD, is completely undermined by this point. Self assessment of symptoms is unreliable, as we see on this forum when people have self-diagnosed and find their way here due to the distress of symptoms like anxiety, but don't necessarily have PTSD.

The paper states "The trauma(s) for which treatment was sought was classified as experiencing violent or abusive crime (51%), loss of a loved one (29%), divorce (11%), chronic or acute illness (10%), and
other." While any of these experiences can be traumatic depending on context, I'm surprised that in a generalised group of patients identified as having PTSD, as many as 40% would be presenting loss of a loved one or divorce as a cause of PTSD. This proportion seems so far from representative to me that it highlights the need for more robust inclusion criteria, without which claims about PTSD shouldn't be made.

jmr, I'm also wondering if you have some involvement with ART. You don't seem to have posted anything on the forum other than these two posts.