How this directory is curated
This page exists so you can check my work. Here's how something gets onto the modality directory, what each evidence grade means, and what would get something taken off.
What the evidence grades mean
- strong evidence
- Repeated, good-quality trials (often randomized), and endorsement by major bodies. In this directory, EMDR for PTSD is the clearest example.
- moderate evidence
- Real supportive research — several trials or solid reviews — but with limits: small samples, specific outcomes, or effects that look general rather than unique.
- preliminary evidence
- Early but promising: a few small trials, pilot studies, or a scoping review. Worth trying, not yet proven.
- practitioner-reported
- Used and valued by practitioners, with little formal research behind it yet. Mostly clinical experience and anecdote.
- contested
- The specific claims (especially about mechanism) are disputed in the literature, or the popular story runs ahead of the evidence. Can still be genuinely helpful — the badge is about the claims, not your experience.
Two things worth saying plainly. First, the grade reflects strength of evidence, not size of effect or whether it'll helpyou — a preliminary approach might help you enormously, and a well-evidenced one might do nothing for you. Second, where I've included my own experience, it sits in a clearly marked box, separate from the evidence, and never dressed up as proof.
What gets included
Approaches people are genuinely likely to encounter while looking into nervous-system healing, that I can describe honestly, and that I can point you toward safely (with a real practitioner directory where one exists). The aim is a small, maintained set — not every possible option — because a short honest list beats a long stale one.
What gets a caveat, and what gets removed
Some things are included with a "contested" grade rather than left off, so you meet them here — armed — rather than elsewhere without context. Something would be removed if it became clearly unsafe, if its claims were actively harmful, or if I could no longer describe it honestly. If a link dies or a fact goes stale, the "last reviewed" date on each entry is there to keep me honest about it.
What's deliberately not here (yet)
Some approaches are left out on purpose for a first version — either because they're clinician-gated and need careful handling (like medication-assisted therapies), or simply because this is small and growing. Absence isn't a judgment; it usually just means "not yet."