Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41560658›Full record

ArticleResearch in psychotherapy (Milano)2025

Clinical applications of the Defense Mechanisms Rating Scale-Self-Report-30: a systematic review of the first five years.

Gabriella Martino, Orlando Silvestro, Emanuele M Merlo, Carmelo M Vicario, Alessandro Meduri, Gianluca Lo Coco

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research in psychotherapy (Milano), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Gabriella MartinoDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Messina.
Orlando SilvestroDepartment of Health Sciences, University Magna Graecia of Catanzaro.
Emanuele M MerloDepartment of Biomedical and Dental Sciences and Morphofunctional Imaging, University of Messina.
Carmelo M VicarioDepartment of Cognitive Science, Psychology, Education and Cultural Studies, University of Messina.
Alessandro MeduriDepartment of Biomedical and Dental Sciences and Morphofunctional Imaging, University of Messina.
Gianluca Lo CocoDepartment of Psychology, Educational Science and Human Movement, University of Palermo.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Defense mechanisms are automatic psychological processes that regulate emotional conflicts and modulate adaptation to internal and external stressors. As implicit components of emotion regulation, they play a transdiagnostic role across psychological and physical domains of health. Among the available instruments, the Defense Mechanisms Rating Scales-Self-Report-30 (DMRS-SR-30) directly operationalizes the hierarchical model of defenses, widely considered the gold standard framework for their empirical assessment. This systematic review aimed to synthesize findings from all studies that had employed the DMRS-SR-30 to date, summarizing its psychometric properties, domains of application, and clinical implications. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Eligible studies were full-text peer-reviewed articles written in English employing the DMRS-SR-30. Risk of bias was assessed according to study design using an established quality appraisal tool. Twenty-six studies met the inclusion criteria. The main domains of application were medical conditions, mental health and psychopathology, personality, and stress-related adjustment. Across these research areas, mature defenses were consistently associated with adaptive functioning and resilience, whereas immature and neurotic defenses predicted higher psychological distress, maladjustment, and psychopathology. The findings from the validation studies demonstrated that the scale exhibited robust reliability, construct validity, and clinical sensitivity. The DMRS-SR-30 provides a valid, efficient, and clinically meaningful method to assess the full hierarchy of defense mechanisms through a self-report tool. Its overall defensive functioning (ODF) index may offer an integrative measure of adaptive capacity that can complement standard psychodiagnostic and medical evaluations. Incorporating the assessment of defensive functioning can enhance the holistic understanding of patients, improve compliance with treatment, and promote person-centered care within mind-body health contexts.

Indexed as

Clinical psychologydefense mechanismsdefense mechanisms rating scaleDMRS-SR- 30implicit emotional regulation

Identifiers

PMID41560658
PMCPMC12878828

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.