Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32212755›Full record

SynthesisJournal of counseling psychology2020

Assessing the alliance-outcome association adjusted for patient characteristics and treatment processes: A meta-analytic summary of direct comparisons.

Christoph Flückiger, A C Del Re, Daniel Wlodasch, Adam O Horvath, Nili Solomonov, Bruce E Wampold

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of counseling psychology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

46 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Heart rate synchrony as an objective biomarker in psychotherapy: a wearable-based pilot study.European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Christoph FlückigerDepartment of Psychology.ORCID 0000-0003-3058-5815
A C Del ReDepartment of Psychology.ORCID 0000-0002-9571-7623
Daniel WlodaschDepartment of Psychology.
Adam O HorvathFaculty of Education.ORCID 0000-0002-5312-7908
Nili SolomonovWeill Cornell Institute of Geriatric Psychiatry.ORCID 0000-0003-1573-5715
Bruce E WampoldSchool of Education.ORCID 0000-0003-1507-980X

Funding

RESEARCH TRAINING IN GERIATRIC MOOD DISORDERST32MH019132 · NIMH · WEILL MEDICAL COLL OF CORNELL UNIV · PI GUNNING, FAITH M · 1990 to 2025
$3.4M
NIMH NIH HHS T32 MH019132Swiss National Science FoundationUniversity of Zurich; Foundation for Research in Science
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The alliance is widely recognized as a robust predictor of posttreatment outcomes. However, there is a debate regarding whether the alliance is an epiphenomenon of intake characteristics and/or treatment processes occurring over the course of treatment. This meta-analysis aimed to synthesize the evidence on this issue. We identified 125 effect sizes in 60 independent samples (6,061 participants) of studies that reported alliance-outcome correlations as well as parallel intake or process characteristics. We examined the impact of these potential confounds on the alliance-outcome correlations. We meta-analyzed the studies estimates by computing omnibus effects models as well as multivariate models. We identified 3 variable types that were used to adjust the alliance-outcome correlations: (a) intake characteristics (

Indexed as

Therapeutic AllianceHumansPatientsTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID32212755
PMCPMC7529648

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.