Research briefing based on literature searches conducted in July 2026

What is the current evidence?

In military/veteran populations with combat-related trauma, the evidence on EMDR from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is sparse and heterogeneous.  A military-focused meta-analysis from Kitchiner et al. (2019) found no statistically significant benefit for EMDR compared with waitlist/usual care (based on four small RCTs). Larger mixed-population meta-analyses exist but these studies are civilian focused and do not stratify results to allow for isolation of any military/veteran data.

A 2025 retrospective study provides new data regarding EMDR delivery to veterans in US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) settings (Fairbanks et al. 2025). The study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of EMDR among veterans and compare outcomes between in-person and telehealth modalities and included 279 veterans in its analysis. The work was supported by resources and facilities at multiple VA medical centres and healthcare systems across the United States.

Another US study by Lancaster et al. (2025) provides real-world data on treatment outcomes for military-affiliated clients, including veterans, active-duty service members and their adult family members, receiving care in a community mental health network (outside VA/US Department of Defense settings). The study examined the effectiveness of cognitive processing therapy (CPT), EMDR, and prolonged exposure (PE) using the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5)(Department of Veterans Affairs 2025) measures throughout treatment. In this study of 2717 participants, 554 began EMDR treatment.

A 2025 retrospective cohort study from the Netherlands by Reij et al. (2025) examined changes in PTSD symptoms and diagnostic status after a brief intensive trauma-focused treatment programme (integrating prolonged exposure, EMDR therapy, psychoeducation, and physical activities) for 43 veterans and 43 matched non-veterans with war-related PTSD.

What are the key messages from the current evidence base?

• Based on Kitchiner et al.’s 2019 meta-analysis, RCT evidence directly in military/veteran samples is limited, with small, older EMDR trials and wide confidence intervals. Pooled EMDR compared with waitlist/usual care effects were not statistically significant in the existing military/veterans synthesis (Kitchiner et al. 2019).
• The 2025 VA retrospective study (USA) suggests that EMDR is an effective treatment for PTSD in veterans, showing a large effect size for PTSD symptoms and a medium effect size for depression symptoms. Both the telehealth and in-person modalities generally yielded similar outcomes in treatment completion and rates of clinical improvement. (Fairbanks et al. 2025)
• The outcomes for EMDR in the Lancaster et al. study (2025) delivered in a community mental health setting (USA) demonstrated large effect sizes, comparable to those of prolonged exposure and cognitive processing therapy,but the authors note that this finding is not consistent in military populations, according to the evidence, citing Kitchiner et al.’s systematic review (Kitchiner et al. 2019).
• Data from the Reij et al. Netherlands study, which used a brief intensive trauma-focused treatment programme including EMDR found moderate evidence that there is no difference between veterans and non-veterans in terms of loss of diagnostic status after treatment (74.4% for veterans and 76.7% for non-veterans). (Reij et al. 2025)
• Military-specific data on remission rates, functional recovery, suicidality/adverse events, and return to duty are largely absent in the existing literature. (Carlson et al. 1998; Fairbanks et al. 2025; Frappell-Cooke et al. 2019 ; Jones et al. 2020 ; Kitchiner et al. 2012, 2019; Lancaster et al. 2025; Reij et al. 2025)
• UK military-specific outcome data for EMDR is currently descriptive rather than trial based (Frappell-Cooke et al. 2019; Kitchiner et al. 2012).

What are the research gaps?

• Acute/early intervention and prevention in combat settings: There are currently no EMDR RCTs specific to recent combat exposure or early intervention in military cohorts.
• Head-to-head comparisons in military and veteran populations: There is a lack of adequately powered RCTs directly comparing the effectiveness of EMDR with other interventions in military and veteran populations. Existing studies are limited in number and often lack standardised outcome measures, making it difficult to draw definitive conclusions about comparative efficacy in these settings. (Kitchiner et al. 2019) However, the Lancaster et al. (2025) real-world study indicates comparable outcomes for EMDR compared with CPT and PE when administered to ‘military-affiliated clients’ in community settings.
• Critical Outcomes: Remission, functioning/quality of life, suicidality, serious adverse events, and return to duty are largely unreported in the existing military/veterans EMDR studies.
• Setting-level stratification: In the published RCTs evaluating the effectiveness of EMDR, there is no analysis that separates or compares results based on the setting, such as whether the study was done in the US Department of Veterans Affairs or Department of Defense, compared with non-US or specifically UK military or veteran healthcare systems.

Methods: Undermind AI was used to initially collate and summarise the evidence. Searches of the EMDR Research Publications Database, checking and editing of the evidence summary was conducted by Anthea Sutton, Research and Academic Liaison, EMDR UK.

Please note: this briefing reports study findings only; the research included has not been assessed for quality. We recommend that evidence users assess the evidence in the studies before applying recommendations in practice. You can find out more about critical appraisal of research in: EMDR UK Association research webinars: Developing critical analytic skills. EMDR Therapy Quarterly, Winter 2025.