Systematic review and meta-analysis: the effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy and eye movement desensitization and reprocessing in children and adolescents.

Authors

Irada Meoon, Aungsana Khlaisuk, Siriyupa Nansunanon, Teerapon Dhippayom

Published in

European journal of psychotraumatology. Volume 17. Issue 1. Pages 2731855. Epub Oct 05, 2026.

Abstract

Background: Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is prevalent among children and adolescents, with cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) widely used treatment options. This study compared the effects of CBT and EMDR in children and adolescents using a meta-analysis approach.Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, and PsycInfo were searched in March 2025. Randomized controlled trials that compared the effectiveness of CBT and EMDR on PTSD symptoms in children and adolescents aged 6-18 years who had been exposed to traumatic events were included. The Cochrane Risk of Bias version 2 was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. A random-effects model was applied to calculate the standardized mean difference (SMD) along with 95% confidence interval (CI), and the I² statistic was used to quantify statistical heterogeneity.Results: Five trials (248 participants) were included. There was no statistically significant difference in PTSD symptoms between the CBT and EMDR groups, whether reported by children (SMD: 0.18; 95% CI: -0.07-0.43; I²= 0%) or by parents (SMD: 0.23; 95% CI: -0.02-0.48; I²= 0%). For anxiety, the pooled estimate did not reach statistical significance (SMD: 0.44; 95% CI: -0.19-1.07; I²= 69%). Depression symptoms were higher in the CBT group than in the EMDR group (SMD: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.13-0.76; I²= 0%).Conclusion: The comparative effects of CBT and EMDR in reducing PTSD and anxiety symptoms remain inconclusive. Although CBT was associated with higher depression symptoms compared with EMDR, the current evidence is based on a small number of trials, and the pooled estimates should be interpreted with caution.

PMID:
42831259
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 05 Oct 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Stats

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.