SynthesisClinical psychology & psychotherapy
Strengths and Limits of Psychodynamic Intervention Rating Scale (PIRS) in Capturing Psychotherapeutic Micro-Process: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Clinical psychology & psychotherapy. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Psychodynamic Intervention Rating Scale (PIRS) stands out as one of the most widely utilised coding systems aimed at categorising micro-process from psychotherapeutic dialogue due to its feasibility and adherence to the expressive-supportive continuum. Despite this, no comprehensive analysis of its application in the literature has been published. This systematic review aims to examine the state of the art, strengths, limitations and future perspectives of such a coding tool for verbatim transcripts.
methodsFollowing Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a systematic search in databases (PsycINFO, Scopus, PubMed and Web of Science) covering publications from the PIRS's first occurrence in the scientific literature in 1992 to 2024 yielded 22 publications eligible for review. Three independent reviewers screened the studies and extracted data regarding PIRS applications and key findings.
resultsThe studies examined revealed that PIRS can reliably classify interventions across various therapeutic approaches, surpassing its psychodynamic origins. It demonstrated peculiar efficacy in understanding therapeutic alliance mechanisms and patients' responses according to their typical defensive patterns. However, the findings also indicated some limitations concerning the breadth of PIRS categories, which may overlook the essential nuances of micro-processes.
conclusionsWhile the PIRS has proven its value for understanding clinical micro-process, its categories may be slightly refined. A proposal for a more granular classification of PIRS categories has finally been provided via a literature analysis.
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.