ArticleResearch in psychotherapy (Milano)2026
Repairing alliance ruptures in psychotherapy with adults: a scoping review.
Article in Research in psychotherapy (Milano), 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Therapeutic alliance ruptures represent critical moments that, if properly addressed, may become opportunities for therapeutic change. Although various models and evidence exist regarding rupture repair, no prior scoping review has systematically mapped clinical recommendations using a replicable methodology. This review aimed to map clinical recommendations for repairing therapeutic alliance ruptures in psychotherapy with adults, focusing on therapist competencies, patient characteristics, and theoretical frameworks underpinning these recommendations. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines, articles were retrieved from Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Scopus, supplemented by secondary searches. Conceptual and empirical publications addressing rupture repair in individual psychotherapy with adults were included (n=25). The review maps two complementary sets of recommendations. Empirical studies appear to converge on strategies organized around rupture recognition, expressive repair (focused on exploring the rupture experience), and immediate repair (focused on corrective task and goal adjustments). Theoretical and conceptual contributions highlight the influence of cultural, contextual, and trauma-related factors on rupture and repair processes, emphasizing the need for sensitivity to patient-specific, cultural, and contextual factors. Overall, the findings suggest that the literature on rupture repair is evolving toward greater contextual sensitivity, with personalization and responsiveness emerging from an integrative reading of the findings as central challenges for clinical practice and future research.
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.