ReviewCurrent psychiatry reports2020
Alliance Ruptures and Resolutions in Personality Disorders.
Review in Current psychiatry reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pattern formation, ruptures, and repairs in treatments of personality disorders: an idiographic case series study.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Article
- The complexity of interpersonal physiology during rupture and repair episodes in the treatment of borderline personality disorder: a proof-of-concept multimethod single case study of verbal and non-verbal interactional dynamics.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Article
- Combined group and individual therapy for patients with avoidant personality disorder-A pilot study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
- The first session is the one that counts: An exploratory study of therapeutic alliance.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Movement Synchrony in the Psychotherapy of Adolescents With Borderline Personality Pathology - A Dyadic Trait Marker for Resilience?Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewThis review provides an overview of the state of research on alliance ruptures and resolutions in the treatment of personality disorders (PDs). We discuss frequently used instruments to measure alliance ruptures and resolutions. We discuss the effectiveness of rupture resolution processes and highlight possible avenues for research to explore. Innovative assessments with the potential to reveal the link of ruptures and resolutions and mechanisms of psychotherapeutic change are discussed. RECENT
findingsThe assessment of alliance rupture and resolutions is heterogeneous. Instruments vary largely with respect to a direct or indirect assessment, the time resolution of assessment (integral therapy, phase, session, event), session sampling strategy and perspectives (patient, therapist, observer). The heterogeneity in the instruments and study designs impedes comparability and interpretation of the findings. Results support the hypothesis that ruptures are more frequent in PD. Results also point towards beneficial effects of rupture resolution patterns, early alliance quality, and resolution complexity. Few studies control findings for pretreatment factors. Evidence points to the direction that rupture resolution processes can be considered a general principle of change in the treatment of PD. The concept of alliance ruptures and resolutions provides a useful tool for the management of the therapeutic alliance and its moments of deteriorations throughout the treatment course. Dimensional pretreatment personality functioning is considered a key variable in future studies to highlight what works for whom.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.