Cited by 43Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research

Randomized controlled trial of multi‐modular motion‐assisted memory desensitization and reconsolidation (3MDR) for male military veterans with treatment‐resistant post‐traumatic stress disorder

Open access
Bisson, J. I., van Deursen, R., Hannigan, B., Kitchiner, N., Barawi, K., Jones, K., Pickles, T., Skipper, J. +5 more·2020·Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica

Abstract

Objective: To explore the potential efficacy of multi‐modular motion‐assisted memory desensitization and reprocessing (3MDR) in British military veterans with treatment‐resistant service‐related PTSD. Methods: Exploratory single‐blind, randomized, parallel arm, cross‐over controlled trial with nested process evaluation to assess fidelity, adherence and factors that influence outcome. Results: A total of 42 participants (all male) were randomized with 83% retention at 12 weeks and 86% at 26 weeks. The difference in mean Clinician‐Administered PTSD Scale for DSM‐5 scores between the immediate and delayed 3MDR arms was −9.38 (95% CI −17.33 to −1.44, P = 0.021) at 12 weeks and −3.59 (−14.39 to 7.20, P = 0.513) at 26 weeks when both groups had received 3MDR. The likely effect size of 3MDR was found to be 0.65. Improvements were maintained at 26‐week follow‐up. 3MDR was found to be acceptable to most, but not all, participants. Several factors that may impact efficacy and acceptability of 3MDR were identified. Conclusion: 3MDR is a promising new intervention for treatment‐resistant PTSD with emerging evidence of effect.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/acps.13200

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Digital health-based treatments are effective at reducing symptoms of PTSD and other mental health disorders caused by exposure to trauma.

    “Current research indicates that these platforms are effective at reducing the symptoms of PTSD and other mental health disorders caused by exposure to trauma [28-32].”

    From Efficacy, Effectiveness, and Quality of Resilience-Building Mobile Health Apps for Military, Veteran, and Public Safety Personnel Populations: Scoping Literature Review and App Evaluation (2022) · cites this paper as [29]

    The Main results (page unavailable) report that 3MDR reduced PTSD symptoms in male military veterans with treatment-resistant PTSD, with positive effects on anxiety and insomnia symptoms. The paper evaluates one motion-assisted treatment, not digital health platforms generally, and does not establish effectiveness for other trauma-related mental health disorders. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Steenkamp M, Litz B, Hoge C, Marmar C. Psychotherapy for military-related PTSD. JAMA 2015;314:489-500.
  2. Kroenke K, Spitzer R, Williams J. The PHQ-9. J Gen Intern Med 2001;16:606-613.
  3. Spitzer R, Kroenke K, Williams J, L€ owe B. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder. Arch Intern Med 2006;166:1092.
  4. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge; 1977.
  5. Higgins JP, Green S (Eds.). Cochrane Handbook for Sys- tematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bisson, J. I., van Deursen, R., Hannigan, B., Kitchiner, N., Barawi, K., Jones, K., Pickles, T., Skipper, J., Young, C., Abbott, L. R., van Gelderen, M., Nijdam, M. J., & Vermetten, E.
Affiliations
  • Cardiff University (GB)
  • School of Healthcare Sciences Cardiff University Cardiff UK
  • Cardiff and Vale University Health Board (GB)
  • Department of Psychiatry Leiden University Medical Center Leiden The Netherlands
  • Arq Psychotrauma Expert Group (NL)
  • Leiden University Medical Center (NL)
Corresponding author
Bisson, J. I.
Venue
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-06-28
Volume
142
Issue
2
Pages
141-151
ISSN
  • 0001-690X (ISSN-L)
  • 1600-0447
OpenAlex
W3031746904
Cited by
43
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5
FWCI
2.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
Forces in Mind Trust (Research Grant)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research
Keywords
post-traumatic stress disorder, treatment-resistant PTSD, military veterans, EMDR, intervention fidelity, acceptability, process evaluation
MeSH terms
Adult, Humans, Male, Memory, Motion, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, Veterans, Single-Blind Method, Treatment Outcome, Cross-Over Studies

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review