The practice-based evidence suggests that it is possible to use eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) to treat major depressive disorder (MDD), but its specific efficacy is unknown. A systematic search was carried out for randomized controlled trials comparing EMDR with a control condition group in MDD patients. Two meta-analyses were conducted, with symptom reduction as primary outcome and remission as exploratory outcome. Eight studies with 320 participants were included in this meta-analysis. The first meta-analysis showed that EMDR outperformed “No Intervention” in decreasing depressive symptoms (standardized mean difference [SMD] = −0.81, 95% CI = −1.22 to −0.39, p < 0.001, low certainty), but statistically significant differences were not observed in improving remission (risk ratio = 1.20, 95% CI = 0.87–1.66, p = 0.25, very low certainty). The second showed the superiority of EMDR over CBT in reducing depressive symptoms (mean difference [MD] = −7.33, 95% CI = −8.26 to −6.39, p < 0.001, low certainty), and improving remission (risk ratio = 1.95, 95% CI = 1.24–3.06, p = 0.004, very low certainty). Besides, anxiety symptoms and level of functioning could not be included as secondary outcome due to the lack of data. The present meta-analysis suggests that EMDR is more effective in treating MDD than “No Intervention” and CBT, particularly in individuals who have traumatic experience. However, this result should be considered with caution due to small sample size and low quality of trails.
Background
Depressive symptoms could be similarly expressed in bipolar and unipolar disorder. However, changes in cognition and brain networks might be quite distinct. We aimed to find out the difference in the neural mechanism of impaired working memory in patients with bipolar and unipolar disorder.
Method
According to diagnostic criteria of bipolar II disorder of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) and assessments, 13 bipolar II depression (BP II), 8 unipolar depression (UD) patients and 15 healthy controls (HC) were recruited in the study. We used 2-back tasks and magnetic source imaging (MSI) to test working memory functions and get the brain reactions of the participants.
Results
Compared with HC, only spatial working memory tasks accuracy was significantly worse in both UD and BP II (p = 0.001). Pearson correlation showed that the stronger the FCs’ strength of MFG-IPL and IPL-preSMA, the higher accuracy of SWM task within left FPN in patients with UD (r = 0.860, p = 0.006; r = 0.752, p = 0.031). However, the FC strength of IFG-IPL was negatively correlated with the accuracy of SWM task within left FPN in patients with BP II (r = − 0.591, p = 0.033).
Conclusions
Our study showed that the spatial working memory of patients with whether UD or BP II was impaired. The patterns of FCs within these two groups of patients were different when performing working memory tasks.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.