Stapleton, P., Kip, K., Church, D., Toussaint, L., Footman, J., Ballantyne, P. et al. · Frontiers in Psychology · 2023
Versus waitlist, usual care, or no treatment, EFT produced large effects (Hedges' g range 1.38-2.51 across trials, pooled fixed-effect g=1.86 [95% CI 1.50-2.22], random-effect g=1.88 [95% CI 1.40-2.35], both p<.001); versus active treatments (EMDR, narrative exposure therapy, CBT; n=58 EFT vs n=58 comparator across 3 trials), effects ranged from -0.15 to 0.79 with fixed/random summary estimates both at 0.27 (not statistically significant), indicating comparable performance to other established therapies.
This is a big deal because matching an already-proven, first-line trauma treatment is a different order of evidence than beating a waitlist. Outperforming 'doing nothing' is a low bar; performing comparably to EMDR and CBT — treatments with decades of backing — means clinicians can no longer dismiss this as merely comforting. It earns a seat at the table of legitimate treatment options, not just a footnote.
If tapping really does perform on par with established trauma therapies like EMDR and CBT, it could give trauma survivors — especially where EMDR-trained clinicians are scarce — a comparably effective option that's faster to train lay helpers in and cheaper to scale into communities with little mental health infrastructure. Because tapping can be taught and then self-administered, survivors wouldn't be permanently dependent on that scarce clinician even after their initial sessions end.
Since EFT already tracks comparably to EMDR and CBT head-to-head here, the far more interesting question now is mechanism — do these three approaches converge on the same physiological endpoint, like reduced amygdala reactivity on fMRI or a normalized cortisol rhythm, by different routes, or are they doing something genuinely different in the brain that happens to produce similar relief? Testing combination protocols, and whether briefly-trained lay providers can deliver EFT as effectively as licensed EMDR clinicians, would also matter for scaling trauma care where specialists are scarce.
| Design | Systematic review |
|---|---|
| Participants | 280 people |
| Population | mixed PTSD populations across 6 trials: Iraqi male students (Baghdad, vs. narrative exposure therapy/control), US veterans (Church 2013, 2016; Geronilla 2016, vs. treatment-as-usual/waitlist), UK adults with diagnosed PTSD in a clinical setting (Karatzias 2011, vs. EMDR), and Congolese female survivors of sexual/gender-based violence (Nemiro & Papworth 2015, vs. CBT) |
| Comparison group | waitlist/usual care/no-treatment (4 trials); active treatment - EMDR, narrative exposure therapy, CBT (3 trials) |
| Effect size | Hedges' g = 1.86 — on EFT vs waitlist/usual care/no-treatment (fixed effect, n=88 EFT vs n=76 control across 4 trials); range across trials 1.38-2.51; random-effect estimate 1.88 (95% CI 1.40-2.35) |
| Outcome measures | various PTSD checklists (PCL, HTQ) |
| Journal | Frontiers in Psychology |
| Year | 2023 |
| Country | Australia |
| Language | English |
| Method | EFT / tapping |
| Publication type | Review or meta-analysis |
| Verification | ✓ Confirmed against the primary source |
Stapleton, P., Kip, K., Church, D., Toussaint, L., Footman, J., Ballantyne, P., & O'Keefe, T. (2023). Emotional Freedom Techniques for Treating Post Traumatic Stress Disorder: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1195286
This record is part of the Tapping Evidence Base — an openly-sourced, fully-referenced directory of the research on EFT/tapping. Explore more studies on PTSD & Trauma
A ready-made graphic — right-click or long-press to save the image.