Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Terapias psicológicas para pacientes con trastorno límite de la personalidad

Appendices

Appendix 1. DSM diagnostic criteria for BPD (301.83)

DSM ‐ Third Edition (DSM‐III;APA 1980)

DSM ‐ Fourth Edition ‐ Text Revision (DSM‐IV‐TR;APA 2000)

DSM ‐ Fifth Edition (DSM‐5;APA 2013)

301.83 BPD

301.83 BPD

301.83 BPD

Diagnostic criterion A

5 of the following are required

  1. Impulsivity or unpredictability in at least 2 areas that are potentially self‐damaging (e.g. spending, sex, substance use, shoplifting, overeating, physically self‐damaging acts)

  2. A pattern of unstable and intense interpersonal relationships (e.g. marked shifts of attitude, idealisation, devaluation, manipulation (consistently using others for one's own ends))

  3. Inappropriate, intense anger or lack of control of anger (e.g. frequent displays of temper, constant anger)

  4. Identity disturbance manifested by uncertainty about several issues relating to identity, such as self‐image, gender identity, long‐term goals or career choice, friendship patterns, values, and loyalties (e.g. 'Who am I', 'I feel like I am my sister when I am good')

  5. Affective instability, marked shifts from normal mood to depression, irritability or anxiety, usually lasting a few hours and only rarely more than a few days, with a return to normal mood

  6. Intolerance of being alone (e.g. frantic efforts to avoid being alone, depressed when alone)

  7. Physically self‐damaging acts (e.g. suicidal gestures, self‐mutilation, recurrent accidents or physical fights)

  8. Chronic feelings of emptiness or boredom

A pervasive pattern of instability of interpersonal relationships, self‐image, and affects, and marked impulsivity beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by 5 (or more) of the following

  1. Frantic efforts to avoid real or imagined abandonment (note: do not include suicidal or self‐mutilating behavior, which is covered in criterion 5)

  2. A pattern of unstable and intense interpersonal relationships characterised by alternating between extremes of idealisation and devaluation

  3. Identity disturbance: markedly and persistently unstable self‐image or sense of self

  4. Impulsivity in at least 2 areas that are potentially self‐damaging (e.g. spending, sex, substance abuse, reckless driving, binge eating) (note: do not include suicidal or self‐mutilating behavior, which is covered in criterion 5)

  5. Recurrent suicidal behavior, gestures, or threats, or self‐mutilating behavior

  6. Affective instability due to a marked reactivity of mood (e.g. intense episodic dysphoria, instability, or anxiety usually lasting a few hours and only rarely more than a few days)

  7. Chronic feelings of emptiness

  8. Inappropriate, intense anger or difficulty controlling anger (e.g. frequent displays of temper, constant anger, recurrent physical fights)

  9. Transient, stress‐related paranoid ideation or severe dissociate symptoms

A pervasive pattern of instability of interpersonal relationships, self‐image, and affects and marked impulsivity, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by 5 (or more) of the following

  1. Frantic efforts to avoid real or imagined abandonment (note: do not include suicidal or self‐mutilating behavior, which is covered in criterion 5)

  2. A pattern of unstable and intense interpersonal relationships characterised by alternating between extremes of idealisation and devaluation

  3. Identity disturbance: markedly and persistently unstable self‐image or sense of self

  4. Impulsivity in at least 2 areas that are potentially self‐damaging (e.g. spending, sex, substance abuse, reckless driving, binge eating) (note: do not include suicidal or self‐mutilating behavior, which is covered in criterion 5)

  5. Recurrent suicidal behavior, gestures or threats, or self‐mutilating behavior

  6. Affective instability due to a marked reactivity of mood (e.g. intense episodic dysphoria, irritability or anxiety of mood) usually lasting a few hours and only rarely more than a few days

  7. Chronic feelings of emptiness

  8. Inappropriate, intense anger or difficulty controlling anger (e.g. frequent displays of temper, constant anger, recurrent physical fights)

  9. Transient, stress‐related paranoid ideation or severe dissociative symptoms

Diagnostic criterion B

If under 18, does not meet the criteria for identity disorder

BPD: Borderline personality disorder; DSM: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

Appendix 2. ICD‐10 research criteria for emotionally unstable personality disorder (F60.3)

F60.30: Emotionally unstable personality disorder, impulsive type

F60.31: Emotionally unstable personality disorder, borderline type

Diagnostic criterion A

The general criteria of personality disorder (F60) must be met

The general criteria of personality disorder (F60) must be met

Diagnostic criterion B

At least 3 of the following must be present, 1 of which is 2

1. Marked tendency to act unexpectedly and without consideration of the consequences

2. Marked tendency to quarrelsome behaviour and to conflicts with others, especially when impulsive acts are thwarted or criticised

3. Liability of outbursts of anger or violence, with inability to control the resulting behavioural explosions

4. Difficulty in maintaining any course of action that offers no immediate reward

5. Unstable and capricious mood

At least 3 of the symptoms mentioned above in criterion B (F60.30) must be present, and, in addition, at least 2 of the following

6. Disturbances in, and uncertainty about, self‐image, aims and internal preferences (including sexual)

7. Liability to become involved in intense and unstable relationships, often leading to emotional crises

8. Excessive efforts to avoid abandonment

9. Recurrent threats or acts of self‐harm

10. Chronic feelings of emptiness

ICD‐10: International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Edition

Appendix 3. Search strategies

Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, in the Cochrane Library

#1 MeSH descriptor: [Borderline Personality Disorder] explode all trees
#2 borderline next state*
#3 borderline next personalit*
#4 "axis II" or "cluster B"
#5 idealization next devaluation
#6 (vulnerable or hyperbolic) next temper*
#7 (((unstab* or instab* or poor or disturb* or fail* or weak* or dysregulat*) next (self* or impuls* or interperson* or identit* or relation* or emotion* or affect*)) and (person* or character or PD))
#8 impulsiv* near personalit*
#9 (self next (injur* or damag* or destruct* or harm* or hurt* or mutilat*))
#10 suicidal next behavio?r
#11 (feel* next (empt* or bored*))
#12 (anger next control*)
#13 (risk‐taking next (behavior or behaviour))
#14 #1 or #2 or #3 or #4 or #5 or #6 or #7 or #8 or #9 or #10 or #11 or #12 or #13

Medline Ovid

1 Borderline Personality Disorder/
2 ((borderline or border‐line) adj3 (state* or personalit*)).kf,tw.
3 ("Axis II" or "Cluster B" or flamboyant or "F60.3" or "F60.30" or "F60.31").kf,tw.
4 (idealization adj5 devaluation).kf,tw.
5 ((vulnerable or hyperbolic) adj3 temperament).kf,tw.
6 (((unstab* or instab* or poor or disturb* or fail* or weak or dysregulat*) adj3 (self* or impuls* or interperson* or identit* or relationship* or emotion* or affect*)) and (personality or character or PD)).kf,tw.
7 (impulsiv* adj5 (behavio?r or character or personalit*)).kf,tw.
8 (self adj3 (injur* or damag* or destruct* or harm* or hurt* or mutilat*)).kf,tw.
9 (suicidal adj3 behavio?r).kf,tw.
10 (feel* adj3 (empt* or bored*)).kf,tw.
11 (anger adj5 control*).kf,tw.
12 (risk‐taking adj3 behavio?r).kf,tw.
13 or/1‐12
14 randomised controlled trial.pt.
15 controlled clinical trial.pt.
16 randomi#ed.ab.
17 placebo.ab.
18 randomly.ab.
19 trial.ab.
20 groups.ab.
21 drug therapy.fs.
22 or/14‐21
23 exp Animals/ not Humans/
24 22 not 23
25 13 and 24

Embase Ovid

1 borderline state/
2 ((borderline or border‐line) adj3 (personalit* or state*)).kw,tw.
3 ("Axis II" or "Cluster B" or flamboyant or "F60.3" or "F60.30" or "F60.31").kw,tw.)
4 (idealization adj5 devaluation).kw,tw.
5 ((vulnerable or hyberbolic) adj3 temperament).kw,tw.
6 (((unstab* or instab* or poor or disturb* or fail* or weak or dysregulat*) adj3 (self* or impuls* or interperson* or identit* or relationship* or emotion* or affect*)) and (personality or character or PD)).kw,tw.
7 (impulsiv* adj5 (behavio?r or character or personalit*)).kw,tw.
8 (self adj3 (injur* or damag* or destruct* or harm* or hurt* or mutilat*)).kw,tw.
9 (suicidal adj3 (behavior or behaviour)).kw,tw.
10 (feel* adj3 (empt* or bored*)).kw,tw.
11 "anger adj5 control*".kw,tw.
12 (risk‐taking adj3 (behavior or behaviour)).kw,tw.
13 or/1‐12
14 randomised controlled trial/
15 double blind procedure/
16 crossover procedure/
17 single blind procedure/
18 (random* or factorial* or crossover* or cross‐over* or placebo* or double‐blind* or doubleblind* or single‐blind* or singleblind* or assign* or allocat* or volunteer*).ab,pt,sh,de,ti.
19 or/14‐18
20 13 and 19

CINAHL EBSCOhost (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature

S1 (MH "Borderline Personality Disorder")
S2 TX borderline N3 (state* or personalit*)
S3 TX "Axis II" OR "Cluster B"
S4 TX idealization N3 devaluation
S5 TX ((vulnerable OR hyperbolic) N3 temperament)
S6 TX (((unstab* or instab* or poor or disturb* or fail* or weak or dysregulat*) N3 (self or impuls* or interperson* or identit* or relationship* or emotion* or affect*)) AND (person* or character or PD))
S7 TX (impulsiv* N3 (behavio?r OR character or personalit*))
S8 TX (feel* N3 (empt* OR bored*))
S9 S1 OR S2 OR S3 OR S4 OR S5 OR S6 OR S7 OR S8
S10 (MH "randomised Controlled Trials") OR (MH "Random Assignment") OR (MH "Random Sample+")
S11 TX random* N4 (trial* OR study OR studies)
S12 TX random* N4 (allocat* OR allot* OR assign* OR basis OR divid* OR order)
S13 AB placebo*
S14 AB trial
S15 (MH "Drug Therapy+")
S16 S10 OR S11 OR S12 OR S13 OR S14 OR S15
S17 S9 AND S16

PsycINFO Ovid

1 exp Borderline Personality Disorder/
2 borderline adj3 (personalit* or state*).id,ti,ab.
3 ("Axis II" or "Cluster B").id,ti,ab.
4 (idealization adj5 devaluation).ab,id,ti.
5 ((vulnerable or hyperbolic) adj3 temperament).id,ab,ti.
6 (((unstab* or instab* or poor or disturb* or fail* or weak or dysregulat*) adj3 (self* or impuls* or interperson* or identit* or relationship* or emotion* or affect*)) and (personality or character or PD)).id,ab,ti.
7 (impulsiv* adj5 (behavio?r or character or personalit*)).id,ab,ti.
8 (self adj3 (injur* or damag* or destruct* or harm* or hurt* or mutilat*)).id,ab,ti.
9 (suicidal adj3 behavio?r).id,ab,ti.
10 (feel* adj3 (empt* or bored*)).ab,id,ti.
11 "anger adj5 control*".ab,id,ti.
12 (risk‐taking adj3 behavio?r).id,ab,ti.
13 or/1‐12
14 exp Clinical Trials/ (
15 (random* adj allocat*).ab.
16 randomi?ed.ab.
17 placebo.ab.
18 randomly.ab.
19 trial.ab.
20 groups.ab.
21 drug therapy.sh.
22 exp Animals/ not Humans/
23 or/14‐21
24 23 not 22
25 13 and 24

ERIC EBSCOhost (Education Resources Information Center)

S23 S11 OR S12 OR S13 OR S14 OR S15 OR S16 OR S17 OR S18 OR S19 OR S20 OR S21 OR S22
S22 TX risk‐taking N5 behaviour
S21 TX anger N5 control*
S20 TX feel* N3 (empt* or bored*)
S19 TX suicidal N3 behavior
S18 TX ( (unstab* or instab* or poor or disturb* or fail* or weak or dysregulat*) N3 TX (self or impuls* or interperson* or identit* or relationship* or emotion* or affect*)) AND TX ( personality OR character OR PD )
S17 AB (self AND (injur* or damag* or destruct* or harm or hurt* or mutilat*))
S16 AB impulsivity
S15 TI impulsivity
S14 TX impulsiv* N3 person*
S13 TX "Axis II" OR "Cluster B"
S12 TX borderline N3 state
S11 TX borderline personality
S10 S1 OR S2 OR S3 OR S4 OR S5 OR S6 OR S7 OR S8 OR S9
S9 AB drug
S8 AB trial
S7 AB randomly
S6 AB placebo
S5 AB randomi?ed
S4 AB controlled clinical trial*
S3 SU controlled clinical trial
S2 TX controlled clinical trial
S1 DE "randomised Controlled Trials"

BIOSIS Previews Web of Science Clarivate Analytics (1969 to 20 March 2019)

#1 TOPIC: (borderline personality disorder)
#2 TOPIC: ((borderline NEAR/3 (state))
#3 TOPIC: ((borderline NEAR/3 personalit*))
#4 TOPIC: (("Axis II" OR "Cluster B"))
#5 TOPIC: (idealization NEAR/5 devaluation)
#6 TOPIC: ((vulnerable OR hyperbolic) NEAR/3 temperament*)
#7 TOPIC: (impulsiv* NEAR/5 personalit*)
#8 TOPIC: ((self NEAR/3 (injur* OR damag* OR destruct* OR harm* OR hurt* OR mutilat*)))
#9 TOPIC: ((((unstab* OR instab* OR poor OR disturb* OR fail* OR weak OR dysregulat*) NEAR/3 (self* OR impuls* OR interperson* OR identit* OR relationship* OR emotion* OR affect*)) AND (personality OR character OR PD)))
#10 TOPIC: (suicidal NEAR/3 behavio?r)
#11 TOPIC: (((feel* NEAR/3 (empt* OR bored*))))
#12 TOPIC: ((anger NEAR/5 control*))
#13 TOPIC: (risk‐taking NEAR/3 behavio?r)
#14 #13 OR #12 OR #11 OR #10 OR #9 OR #8 OR #7 OR #6 OR #5 OR #4 OR #3 OR #2 OR #1
#15 TOPIC: (controlled clinical trial)
#16 TOPIC: (randomised controlled trial)
#17 #16 OR #15
#18 #17 AND #14

Web of Science Core Collection Clarivate Analytics

#18 #17 AND #14
#17 #16 OR #15
#16 TOPIC: (controlled clinical trial)
#15 TOPIC: (randomised controlled trial)
#14 #13 OR #12 OR #11 OR #10 OR #9 OR #8 OR #7 OR #6 OR #5 OR #4 OR #3 OR #2 OR #1
#13 TITLE: ((risk‐taking NEAR/3 behavio?r))
#12 TOPIC: ((risk‐taking NEAR/3 behavio?r))
#11 TITLE: ((anger NEAR/5 control*))
#10 TOPIC: ((feel* NEAR/3 (empt* OR bored*)))
#9 TITLE: ((feel* NEAR/3 (empt* OR bored*)))
#8 TITLE: (suicidal NEAR/3 behavio?r)
#7 TITLE: (impulsivity)
#6 TOPIC: ((((unstab* OR instab* OR poor OR disturb* OR fail* OR weak OR dysregulat*) NEAR/3 (self* OR impuls* OR interperson* OR identit* OR relationship* OR emotion* OR affect*)) AND (personality OR character OR PD)))
#5 TOPIC: ((vulnerable or hyperbolic) NEAR/3 temperament)
#4 TOPIC: ((idealization NEAR/5 devaluation))
#3 TOPIC: ("axis II" OR "Cluster B")
#2 TOPIC: (borderline NEAR/3 state)
#1 TOPIC: (borderline personality disorder)

Sociological Abstracts ProQuest

(((randomised controlled trial) OR (controlled clinical trial) OR SU.exact("CLINICAL TRIALS")) OR AB(randomi?ed) OR AB(randomly) OR AB(placebo) OR AB(trial)) AND ((borderline personality) OR "axis II" OR "Cluster B" OR (idealization AND devaluation) OR ((vulnerable OR hyperbolic) AND temperament) OR (((unstab* OR instab* or poor or disturb* or fail* or weak or dysregulat*) AND (self* or impuls* or interperson* or identit* or relationship* or emotion* or affect*)) AND (personality OR character OR PD)) OR (self AND (injur* OR damag* OR destruct* OR harm OR hurt* OR mutilat*)) OR "suicidal behavio?r" OR "self destructive behavio?r" OR (feel* AND (empt* OR bored*)))

LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information Database)

“Borderline personality disorder”, limits: Controlled clinical study

ProQuest Dissertations A&I

(SU(borderline personality disorder) OR AB("Axis II") OR AB("Cluster B")) AND (("randomised controlled study" OR "controlled clinical study") OR AB(randomi?ed) OR AB(placebo) OR AB(randomly))

OpenGrey:

“Borderline personality disorder”

NDLTD

“Borderline personality disorder”

DART Europe E‐theses portal

“Borderline personality disorder”

ANZCTR

“Borderline personality disorder”

ClinicalTrials.gov

“Borderline personality disorder”

ISRCTN

“Borderline personality disorder”

WHO ICTRP:

“Borderline personality disorder”

UK Clinical Trials Gateway

“Borderline personality disorder”

EU Clinical Trials Register

“Borderline personality disorder”

Library HubDiscover (previously COPAC)

“Borderline personality disorder”

Appendix 4. Table of outcomes

Primary outcomes

1. BPD symptom severity

Name of scale/means of assessment

Abbreviation

Clinician‐rated (CR)/self‐rated (SR) 

Study

Borderline Personality Disorder Checklist ‐ 40

BDP‐40

SR

Bos 2010

Borderline Evaluation of Severity over Time

BEST

SR

Blum 2008 (12‐month follow‐up data); Gratz 2006; Gratz 2014; Gregory 2008b; Morton 2012

Borderline Personality Disorder Features Scale

BPDFS

SR

Lin 2019

Borderline Personality Features Scale for Children

BPFS‐C

SR

Rossouw 2012b

Borderline Personality Inventory

BPI

SR

Leichsenring 2016

Borderline Personality Disorder Severity Index ‐ 4th Edition

BPDSI‐IV

CR

Bellino 2010; Giesen‐Bloo 2006; Kamalabadi 2012; Laurenssen 2018; Leppänen 2016; Nadort 2009; Philips 2018; Sinnaeve 2018

Borderline Personality Disorder Severity Index ‐ 4th Edition for adolescents

BPDSI‐IV‐adol

CR

Schuppert 2012

Borderline Syndrome Index

BSI

SR

Farrell 2009

Borderline Symptom List ‐ 23 items

BSL‐23

SR

Carmona í Farrés 2019; Elices 2016; Feliu‐Soler 2017; McMain 2017; Kramer 2014; Pascual 2015; Schilling 2018

Clinical Global Impression scale for Borderline Personality Disorder patients

CGI‐BPD

CR

Amianto 2011; Soler 2009

International Personality Disorder Examination ‐ Borderline Personality Disorder criteria

IPDE‐BPD

CR

Bohus 2013

Millon Adolescent Clinical Inventory

MACI

CR

Santisteban 2015

Personality Assessment Inventory ‐ Borderline Scale

PAI‐BOR

SR

Morey 2010

Structured Clinical Interview for DSM‐IV Axis II Personality Disorders, Number of borderline criteria met

SCID‐II, Number of borderline criteria met

CR

Doering 2010; Jørgensen 2013; Koons 2001a; Kredlow 2017a; Kredlow 2017b

Structured Clinical Interview for DSM‐IV Axis II Personality Disorders, Still meeting borderline criteria

SCID‐II, Still meeting borderline criteria

CR

Davidson 2006

Zanarini Rating Scale for Borderline Personality Disorder

ZAN‐BPD

CR

Bateman 1999; Blum 2008 (post‐treatment data); Gratz 2014; McMain 2009; Priebe 2012; Reneses 2013; Robinson 2016; Zanarini 2018

2. Self‐harm

Name of scale/means of assessment

Abbreviation

Clinician‐rated (CR)/self‐rated (SR)

Study

Borderline Personality Disorder Severity Index ‐ 4th Edition, Parasuicidal Behaviour

BPDSI‐IV, parasuicidal behaviour

CR

Bellino 2010

Cornell Interview for Suicidal and Self‐Harming Behavior‐Self‐Report

CISSB

SR

Doering 2010

Days of self‐harm and type of deliberate self‐harm were recorded in an interview on a structured form

None

None

Priebe 2012

Deliberate Self‐Harm Inventory

DSHI

SR

Gratz 2006; Gratz 2014; McMain 2017

Deliberate Self‐Harm Inventory ‐ Short Form

DSHI‐SF

SR

Philips 2018

Deliberate Self‐Harm Inventory ‐ participants with self‐harm during previous 12 months

DSHI ‐ participants with self‐harm

SR

Davidson 2006

Lifetime Parasuicide Count ‐ Self‐Mutilative Accts

LPC

CR

Gregory 2008b; Sinnaeve 2018; Van den Bosch 2005

Number of self‐harming incidents during previous 12‐month period

Unclear

Unclear

Amianto 2011

Number of self‐harming acts during previous three‐month period

Unclear

Unclear

Carter 2010

Suicide and Self‐Harm Inventory ‐ number of patients with self‐harming behaviour during previous six‐month period

SSHI ‐ patients with self‐harm

CR

Bateman 1999; Bateman 2009

Personality Assessment Inventory, Borderline Features Scale ‐ Self‐Harm

PAI‐BOR‐S

SR

Morey 2010

Parasuicide History Interview ‐ deliberate self‐harm frequency

PHI ‐ deliberate self‐harm frequency

CR

Koons 2001a; Weinberg 2006

Parasuicide History Interview ‐ patients with self‐harming behaviour during previous 12‐month period

PHI ‐ patients with self‐harm

CR

Linehan 1991

Risk‐Taking and Self‐Harm Inventory ‐ participants with self‐harming behaviour

RTSHI ‐ patients with self‐harm

SR

Rossouw 2012b

Suicide Attempt and Self‐Injury Interview, Non‐Suicidal Self‐Injury scale

SASII ‐ NSSI/self‐harm

CR

Feigenbaum 2012; Harned 2014; Linehan 2006; Linehan 2015a;

Suicide Attempt and Self‐Injury Interview ‐ number of suicidal and self‐injurious episodes

SASII ‐ suicidal and self‐injurious episodes

CR

McMain 2009

Self‐Harming Behaviours Checklist

SHBCL

CR

Cottraux 2009

Self‐Harm Questionnaire ‐ number of suicidal and self‐injurious episodes

SHQ ‐ suicidal and self‐injurious episodes

SR

Borschmann 2013

Target Behaviour Rating ‐ frequency of parasuicide

TBR ‐ frequency of parasuicide

CR

Turner 2000

3. Suicide‐related outcomes

Name of scale/means of assessment

Abbreviation

Clinician‐rated (CR)/self‐rated (SR)

Study

The 12‐item Adult Suicidal Ideation Questionnaire— Shortened Version

ASIQ‐S

SR

Lin 2019

Beck Hopelessness Scale

BHS

SR

Cottraux 2009

Beck Scale for Suicidal Ideation

BSS

SR

Davidson 2014; Koons 2001a; Mohamadizadeh 2017; Turner 2000

Clinical Global Impression scale for Borderline Personality Disorder patients, suicidality

CGI‐BPD, Suicidality

CR

Amianto 2011; Soler 2009

Deliberate Self‐Harm Inventory, suicide attempts (cumulative average)

DSHI, Suicide Attempts (cumulative average)

CR

Davidson 2006

Lifetime Suicide Attempt Self‐Injury Interview

LSASI

CR

McMain 2017; Reneses 2013

Number of participants with suicide attempt (recorded via direct contact with patients and health care staff, as well as from reviewing the case records)

None

CR

Philips 2018

Number of suicide attempts

None

None

Stanley 2017

Personality Assessment Inventory ‐ suicidal ideation

PAI‐SI

SR

Morey 2010

Borderline Personality Disorder Severity Index ‐ 4th Edition, parasuicidality, suicide plans and attempts

BPDSI‐IV, parasuicidality, suicide plans and attempts

CR

Leppänen 2016

Suicidal Behaviours Questionnaire

SBQ

SR

Weinberg 2006

Suicidal Ideation Questionnaire ‐ Junior

SIQ‐JR

SR

Mehlum 2014

Suicide attempt and self‐injury interview,  suicide attempts

SASII, suicide attempts

CR

Feigenbaum 2012; Harned 2014; Linehan 2006; Linehan 2015a

Self‐Harm Inventory  (number of participants with life‐threatening suicide attempts in the last 6 months)

SSHI

CR

Bateman 1999; Bateman 2009

Overt Aggression Scale ‐ Modified for outpatients, suicidality

OAS‐M, suicidality

CR

Gleeson 2012

Borderline Personality Disorder Severity Index, parasuicidal

BPDSI, parasuicidal

CR

Kamalabadi 2012

4. Psychosocial functioning

Name of scale/means of assessment

Abbreviation

Clinician‐rated (CR)/self‐rated (SR)

Study

Brief Disability Questionnaire, days out of role

BDQ, days out of role

SR

Carter 2010

Children's Global Assessment Scalea

C‐GAS

CR

Mehlum 2014

Clinical Global Impressions scale ‐ severity of illness

CGI‐S

CR

Bellino 2006; Bellino 2010Cottraux 2009;

Clinical Global Impressions scale ‐ improvement ‐ self‐rated

CGI‐I‐SR

SR

Soler 2009

Dutch version of the Health of the Nations Outcome Scales

HoNOS

CR

Jochems 2015

Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation – outcome measure, Functioning subscale

CORE‐OM, Functioning subscale

SR

Feigenbaum 2012

Global Assessment of Functioning scalea

GAF

CR

Amianto 2011; Antonsen 2017Bohus 2013Doering 2010Farrell 2009Kredlow 2017b; Robinson 2016; Salzer 2014

Global Assessment Scalea

GAS

CR

Andreoli 2016Blum 2008; Harned 2014Linehan 1994

General Health Questionnaire, functioning

GHQ, functioning

CR

Kamalabadi 2012

Outcome Questionnaire—45.2, social role

OQ45, social role

SR

Haeyen 2018Kramer 2011; Kramer 2014; Kramer 2016

Social Functioning Questionnaire

SFQ

SR

Davidson 2006; McMurran 2016

Sheehan Disability Scale

SDS

SR

Gratz 2014; Zanarini 2018

Social Adjustment Scale ‐ self‐rating

SAS‐SR

SR

Bateman 1999; Bateman 2009; Jørgensen 2013; McMain 2017; Reneses 2013

Satisfaction Profile, social functioning

None

SR

Bellino 2010

Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scalea

SOFAS

CR

Bellino 2007; Gleeson 2012

Social Provisions Scale ‐ "How many days were you paid for working in the past 30 days?"a

SPS ‐ days paid for working

SR

Gregory 2008b

Total Outcome Questionnaire 45

OQ45

SR

Haeyen 2018

Work and Social Adjustment Scale

WSAS

SR

Borschmann 2013

aFor these scales, higher scores indicate better functioning, as opposed to most other clinical outcome scales (where higher scores indicate higher burden). Scores were multiplied by ( −1) before entering for effect size calculation, to ensure that a negative direction of effect indicates a beneficial effect (like for most other clinical outcomes).

Secondary outcomes

1. Anger

Name of scale/means of assessment

Abbreviation

Clinician‐rated (CR)/self‐rated (SR)

Study

Anger Irritability and Assault Questionnaire, Labile Anger subscale

AIAQ, Labile Anger subscale

SR

Gleeson 2012

Borderline Personality Disorder Severity Index ‐ 4th Edition, anger

BPDSI‐IV, anger

CR

Bellino 2010; Kamalabadi 2012; Leppänen 2016

Clinical Global Impression scale for Borderline Personality Disorder patients, anger

CGI‐BPD, anger

CR

Amianto 2011; Soler 2009

Overt Aggression Scale ‐ Modified, labile anger 

OAS‐M, labile anger

CR

Gleeson 2012

Spielberger Anger Expression Scale, anger out

STAXI, anger out

SR

Feigenbaum 2012; Koons 2001a; Linehan 2006; McMain 2009

Spielberger Anger Expression Scale, trait anger

STAXI, trait anger

SR

Linehan 1994; McMain 2017

Target Behaviour Rating, anger

TBR, anger

CR

Turner 2000

2. Affective instability

Name of scale/means of assessment

Abbreviation

Clinician‐rated (CR)/self‐rated (SR)

Study

Borderline Personality Disorder Severity Index ‐ 4th Edition, affective instability

BPDSI‐IV, affective instability

CR

Bellino 2010; Kamalabadi 2012; Leppänen 2016

Borderline Personality Disorder Severity Index ‐ 4th Edition for adolescents, affective instability

BPDSI‐IV‐adol, affective instability

CR

Schuppert 2012

Clinical Global Impression scale for Borderline Personality Disorder patients, affective instability

CGI‐BPD, affective instability

CR

Amianto 2011; Soler 2009

Revised Diagnostic Interview for Borderlines, Affect subscale

DIB‐R, Affect subscale

CR

Farrell 2009

Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale, Total score

DERS, Total score

SR

Bianchini 2019; Gratz 2006; Gratz 2014; McMain 2017; Morton 2012

Personality Assessment Inventory, affective instability

PAI‐BOR‐A, affective instability

SR

Morey 2010

Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire, emotional problems

SDQ, emotional problems

SR

Salzer 2014

Zanarini Rating Scale for Borderline Personality Disorder, affective instability

ZAN‐BPD, affective instability

CR

Blum 2008; Reneses 2013; Zanarini 2018

3. Chronic feeling of emptiness

Name of scale/means of assessment

Abbreviation

Clinician‐rated (CR)/self‐rated (SR)

Study

Borderline Personality Disorder Severity Index ‐ 4th Edition, emptiness

BPDSI‐IV, emptiness

CR

Bellino 2010; Kamalabadi 2012; Leppänen 2016

Clinical Global Impression scale for Borderline Personality Disorder patients, emptiness

CGI‐BPD, emptiness

CR

Amianto 2011; Soler 2009

Zanarini Rating Scale for Borderline Personality Disorder, feeling of emptiness

Zan‐BPDf, feeling of emptiness

CR

Reneses 2013

4. Impulsivity

Name of scale/means of assessment

Abbreviation

Clinician‐rated (CR)/self‐rated (SR)

Study

Barrett Impulsiveness Scale

BIS

SR

Bianchini 2019, McMain 2017; Pascual 2015

Barrett Impulsiveness Scale ‐ 11, non‐planning

BIS‐11, non‐planning

SR

Carmona í Farrés 2019; Elices 2016

Borderline Personality Disorder Severity Index ‐ 4th Edition, impulsivity

BPDSI‐IV, impulsivity

CR

Bellino 2010; Kamalabadi 2012; Leppänen 2016; Van den Bosch 2005

Clinical Global Impression scale for Borderline Personality Disorder patients, impulsivity

CGI‐BPD, impulsivity

CR

Amianto 2011; Soler 2009

Diagnostic Interview for Borderline Personality Disorder ‐ Revised, impulsive

DIB‐R, impulsive

CR

Farrell 2009

Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale, impulsive dyscontrol

DERS, impulse dyscontrol

SR

Gratz 2006; Gratz 2014

Eysenck Impulsivity Venturesomeness Empathy Questionnaire, impulsivity

IVE, impulsivity

SR

Cottraux 2009

Target Behaviour Rating, impulsiveness

TBR, impulsiveness

CR

Turner 2000

Zanarini Rating Scale for Borderline Personality Disorder, impulsivity

ZAN‐BPD, impulsivity

CR, SR

Blum 2008; Reneses 2013; Robinson 2016; Zanarini 2018

5. Interpersonal problems

Name of scale/means of assessment

Abbreviation

Clinician‐rated (CR)/self‐rated (SR)

Study

Borderline Personality Disorder Severity Index ‐ 4th Edition, interpersonal relationships

BPDSI‐IV, interpersonal relationships

CR

Bellino 2010; Kamalabadi 2012

Borderline Personality Disorder Severity Index ‐ 4th Edition, unstable relationships

BPDSI‐IV, unstable relationships

CR

Leppänen 2016

Clinical Global Impression scale for Borderline Personality Disorder patients, unstable relations

CGI‐BPD, unstable relations

CR

Amianto 2011; Soler 2009

Circumplex of Interpersonal Problems

CIP

SR

Antonsen 2017

Revised Diagnostic Interview for Borderlines, Interpersonal subscale

DIB‐R, Interpersonal subscale

CR

Farrell 2009

EQ‐5D Health‐Related Quality of Life
Questionnaire, social relationships

EQ‐5D, social relationships

SR

Robinson 2016

Inventory of Interpersonal Problems ‐ Borderline Personality Disorder, Related composite

IIP‐BPD, Related composite

SR

Gratz 2014

Inventory of Interpersonal Problems ‐ Circumflex version/64‐item version

IIP‐C/IIP‐64

SR

Bateman 1999; Bateman 2009; Jørgensen 2013; Laurenssen 2018; Leichsenring 2016; McMain 2009; Philips 2018

Inventory of Interpersonal Problems ‐ 25‐item version

IIP‐25

SR

Harned 2014

Inventory of Interpersonal Problems Short Circumplex ‐ 32‐item version

IIP‐SC/IIP‐32

SR

Davidson 2006

Outcome Questionnaire 45, interpersonal relations

OQ45, interpersonal relations

SR

Haeyen 2018; Kramer 2011; Kramer 2014; Kramer 2016

Personality Assessment Inventory ‐ Borderline Features Scale ‐ negative relationships

PAI‐BOR‐N

SR

Morey 2010

Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire, problems in relationships

SDQ, problems in relationships

SR

Salzer 2014

Abbreviated World Health Organization Quality of Life Questionnaire, Social relationships score

WHOQOL‐Bref, Social relationships score

SR

Bos 2010; Carter 2010

Zanarini Rating Scale for Borderline Personality Disorder, disturbed relationships

ZAN‐BPD, disturbed relationships

CR

Blum 2008; Reneses 2013; Zanarini 2018

6. Abandonment

Name of scale/means of assessment

Abbreviation

Clinician‐rated (CR)/self‐rated (SR)

Study

Borderline Personality Disorder Severity Index ‐ 4th Edition, abandonment

BPDSI‐IV, abandonment

CR

Bellino 2010; Kamalabadi 2012; Leppänen 2016

Clinical Global Impression scale for Borderline Personality Disorder patients, fear of abandonment

CGI‐BPD, fear of abandonment

CR

Amianto 2011

7. Identity disturbance

Name of scale/means of assessment

Abbreviation

Clinician‐rated (CR)/self‐rated (SR)

Study

Borderline Personality Disorder Severity Index ‐ 4th Edition, identity disturbance

BPDSI‐IV, identity disturbance

CR

Bellino 2010; Kamalabadi 2012; Leppänen 2016

Borderline Personality Inventory, identity diffusion

BPI, identity diffusion

SR

Leichsenring 2016

Clinical Global Impression scale for Borderline Personality Disorder patients, identity distortion 

CGI‐BPD, identity distortion

CR

Amianto 2011

Personality Assessment Inventory ‐ Borderline Features Scale ‐ identity disturbance

PAI‐BOR‐I

SR

Morey 2010

Severity Indices of Personality Problems

SIPP

SR

Antonsen 2017

Zanarini Rating Scale for Borderline Personality Disorder, Identity subscale

Zan‐BPD, Identity subscale

CR

Reneses 2013

8. Dissociation and psychotic‐like symptoms

Name of scale/means of assessment

Abbreviation

Clinician‐rated (CR)/self‐rated (SR)

Study

Borderline Personality Disorder Severity Index ‐ 4th Edition, paranoid ideation

BPDSI‐IV, paranoid ideation

CR

Bellino 2010; Leppänen 2016

Borderline Personality Disorder Severity Index ‐ 4th Edition, dissociation

BPDSI‐IV, dissociation

CR

Kamalabadi 2012

Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale

BPRS

CR

Gleeson 2012; Kredlow 2017aSoler 2009; Turner 2000

Clinical Global Impression scale for Borderline Personality Disorder patients, dissociative symptoms

CGI‐BPD, dissociative symptoms

CR

Amianto 2011

Revised Diagnostic Interview for Borderlines, Cognitive subscale

DIB‐R, Cognitive subscale

CR

Farrell 2009

Dissociative Experiences Scale

DES

SR

Bohus 2013; Feigenbaum 2012Gregory 2008bKoons 2001a 

Dissociative Experiences Scale ‐ Taxon

DES‐T

SR

Harned 2014

Zanarini Rating Scale for Borderline Personality Disorder, cognitive

Zan‐BPD, cognitive

CR

Blum 2008

9. Depression

Name of scale/means of assessment

Abbreviation

Clinician‐rated (CR)/self‐rated (SR)

Study

Beck Depression Inventory

BDI

SR

Antonsen 2017; Bateman 1999; Bateman 2009; Blum 2008; Cottraux 2009; Doering 2010; Gregory 2008b; Koons 2001a; Laurenssen 2018; Leichsenring 2016; McMain 2009; Schilling 2018; Turner 2000

Beck Depression Inventory‐II

BDI‐II

SR

Bohus 2013; Davidson 2006; Feigenbaum 2012; Jørgensen 2013; Kredlow 2017a; Kredlow 2017b; McMain 2017; Mohamadizadeh 2017

Depression Anxiety Stress Scales

DASS

SR

Gratz 2006; Gratz 2014; Morton 2012

Depression Anxiety Stress Scale ‐ 21

DASS‐21

SR

Robinson 2016

Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children – Predictive Scales

DISC ‐ PS

SR

Santisteban 2015

General Health Questionnaire, Depression subscale

GHQ, Depression subscale

SR

Kamalabadi 2012

Hamilton Depression Inventory

Ham‐D

CR

Bellino 2006; Bellino 2007; Bellino 2010; Smith 2012

Hamilton Depression Inventory  ‐ 17‐item

Ham‐D‐17

SR, CR

Linehan 2006; Soler 2009

Hamilton Depression Rating Scale

HDRS

SR

Andreoli 2016Harned 2014Jahangard 2012; Linehan 2015a

Hamilton Depression and Anxiety Scale

HADS

SR

Borschmann 2013; Davidson 2014; McMurran 2016

Ko’s Depression Inventory

None

SR

Lin 2019

Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale

MADRS

CR

Gleeson 2012; Mehlum 2014; Pascual 2015; Reneses 2013

Mood and Feelings Questionnaire ‐ participants scoring higher than cut‐off for depression

MFQ ‐ above cut‐off

SR

Rossouw 2012b

Clinically Useful Depression Outcome Scale, total score

None

SR

Zanarini 2018

10. Adverse effects

Name of scale/means of assessment

Abbreviation

Clinician‐rated (CR)/self‐rated (SR)

 Study

Spontaneous reporting
 

Andreoli 2016; Davidson 2014; Haeyen 2018; Leichsenring 2016; McMurran 2016; Pascual 2015; Robinson 2016; Stanley 2017
 

The remaining trials did not report adverse effects

Appendix 5. 'Risk of bias' components and criteria for assigning judgements

Selection bias

Random sequence generation

  1. Low risk of bias: The method used was adequate (e.g. computer‐generated random numbers, table of random numbers) or was unlikely to introduce selection bias.

  2. Unclear risk of bias: The information was insufficient for the assessment of whether the method used could introduce selection bias.

  3. High risk of bias: The method used was likely to introduce bias.

Allocation concealment

  1. Low risk of bias: The method used (e.g. central allocation) was unlikely to bias allocation to groups.

  2. Unclear risk of bias: The information was insufficient for assessment of whether the method used could bias allocation to groups.

  3. High risk of bias: The method used (e.g. open random allocation schedule) could bias allocation to groups.

Detection bias: blinding of outcome assessment

  1. Low risk of bias: The method of blinding was described and blinding was conducted in a satisfactory way.

  2. Unclear risk of bias: The information was insufficient for assessment of whether the type of blinding used was likely to bias the estimate of effect.

  3. High risk of bias: There was no blinding or incomplete blinding.

Attrition bias: incomplete outcome data

  1. Low risk of bias: The underlying reasons for missing data probably would not affect outcome measurement, as all missing data can be considered as missing at random or all data were reported.

  2. Unclear risk of bias: The information was insufficient for the assessment of whether the missing data or the method used to handle missing data was likely to bias the estimate of effect.

  3. High risk of bias: The crude estimate of effects could be biased given the reasons for the missing data, or the methods used to handle missing data are unsatisfactory.

Reporting bias: selective outcome reporting

  1. Low risk of bias: The trial protocol was available and all prespecified outcomes of interest were reported.

  2. Unclear risk of bias: The information was insufficient for the assessment of whether selective outcome reporting could have occurred.

  3. High risk of bias: Not all of the primary outcomes specified beforehand were reported or participants were excluded after randomisation.

Other potential sources of bias

Treatment adherence bias

  1. Low risk of bias: Measures were undertaken to assure adequate treatment adherence; for example, by regular supervision or use of adherence ratings of videotaped or audio‐taped therapy sessions.

  2. Unclear risk of bias: There was insufficient information to assess the extent of adequate treatment adherence.

  3. High risk of bias: There was inadequate treatment adherence. Steps/measures were undertaken to assure adequate treatment adherence.

Attention bias

  1. Low risk of bias: The treatment conditions were sufficiently similar in duration and intensity.

  2. Unclear risk of bias: There was insufficient information in regards to treatment duration and intensity.

  3. High risk of bias: One treatment condition was markedly more intense or was of longer duration than (a)nother condition(s).

Affiliation bias

  1. Low risk of bias: The principal investigator was not the developer of the treatment under investigation (if compared to a control condition), or both treatment developers were involved if two treatments were directly compared.

  2. Unclear risk of bias: There was insufficient information to assess affiliation bias.

  3. High risk of bias: The principal investigator was the developer of the treatment under investigation (if compared to a control condition), or only one of the treatment developers was involved if two treatments were directly compared.

Other sources of bias

  1. Low risk of bias: The trial appeared to be free of other sources of bias.

  2. Unclear risk of bias: The information was inadequate for the assessment of other possible sources of bias.

  3. High risk of bias: Other sources of bias were identified.

Appendix 6. Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) and funnel plots figures

Psychotherapy versus TAU

Primary outcomes
BPD symptom severity

We performed a TSA on the primary outcome of borderline symptom severity at end of treatment. The analysis shows that the required information size was reached. See Figure 4 below.


Trial Sequential Analysis on primary outcome: Psychotherapy ‐ borderline symptom severity at end of treatment

Trial Sequential Analysis on primary outcome: Psychotherapy ‐ borderline symptom severity at end of treatment

We drew a funnel plot for the comparison between psychotherapy and TAU for the primary outcome of BPD symptom severity. The funnel plot shows a small asymmetry. See Figure 5 below.


Funnel plot of comparison 1: Psychotherapy versus TAU, outcome: 1.1 Primary outcome: BPD symptom severity.

Funnel plot of comparison 1: Psychotherapy versus TAU, outcome: 1.1 Primary outcome: BPD symptom severity.

Self‐harm

We performed a TSA on the primary outcome of self‐harm at end of treatment. The analysis shows that the required information size was reached. See Figure 6 below.


Trial Sequential Analysis on primary outcome: Psychotherapy ‐ self‐harm at end of treatment

Trial Sequential Analysis on primary outcome: Psychotherapy ‐ self‐harm at end of treatment

We drew a funnel plot for the comparison between psychotherapy and TAU for the outcome of self‐harm. The funnel plot shows symmetry. See Figure 7 below.


Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Psychotherapy versus TAU, outcome: 1.3 Primary outcome: self‐harm.

Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Psychotherapy versus TAU, outcome: 1.3 Primary outcome: self‐harm.

Suicide‐related outcomes

We performed a TSA on the primary outcome of suicide‐related outcomes at end of treatment. The analysis shows that the required information size was reached. See Figure 8 below.


Trial Sequential Analysis on primary outcome: Psychotherapy ‐ suicide‐related outcomes at end of treatment

Trial Sequential Analysis on primary outcome: Psychotherapy ‐ suicide‐related outcomes at end of treatment

We drew a funnel plot for the comparison between psychotherapy and TAU for suicide‐related outcomes. The funnel plot shows symmetry. See Figure 9 below.


Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Psychotherapy compared with TAU, outcome: 1.5 Primary outcome: suicide‐related outcomes.

Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Psychotherapy compared with TAU, outcome: 1.5 Primary outcome: suicide‐related outcomes.

Psychosocial functioning

We performed a TSA on the primary outcome of psychosocial functioning at end of treatment. The analysis shows that the required information size was reached. See Figure 10 below.


Trial Sequential Analysis on primary outcome: Psychotherapy ‐ psychosocial functioning at end of treatment

Trial Sequential Analysis on primary outcome: Psychotherapy ‐ psychosocial functioning at end of treatment

We drew a funnel plot for the comparison between psychotherapy and TAU for the outcome of psychosocial functioning. The funnel plot shows symmetry. See Figure 11 below.


Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Psychotherapy compared with TAU, outcome: 1.7 Primary outcome: psychosocial functioning.

Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Psychotherapy compared with TAU, outcome: 1.7 Primary outcome: psychosocial functioning.

Secondary outcome: depression

We performed a TSA on the secondary outcome of depression at end of treatment. The analysis shows that the required information size was not reached. See Figure 12 below.


Trial Sequential Analysis on secondary outcome: Psychotherapy ‐ depression at end of treatment

Trial Sequential Analysis on secondary outcome: Psychotherapy ‐ depression at end of treatment

Study flow diagram

Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Study flow diagram

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Figuras y tablas -
Figure 3

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Trial Sequential Analysis on primary outcome: Psychotherapy ‐ borderline symptom severity at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Figure 4

Trial Sequential Analysis on primary outcome: Psychotherapy ‐ borderline symptom severity at end of treatment

Funnel plot of comparison 1: Psychotherapy versus TAU, outcome: 1.1 Primary outcome: BPD symptom severity.

Figuras y tablas -
Figure 5

Funnel plot of comparison 1: Psychotherapy versus TAU, outcome: 1.1 Primary outcome: BPD symptom severity.

Trial Sequential Analysis on primary outcome: Psychotherapy ‐ self‐harm at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Figure 6

Trial Sequential Analysis on primary outcome: Psychotherapy ‐ self‐harm at end of treatment

Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Psychotherapy versus TAU, outcome: 1.3 Primary outcome: self‐harm.

Figuras y tablas -
Figure 7

Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Psychotherapy versus TAU, outcome: 1.3 Primary outcome: self‐harm.

Trial Sequential Analysis on primary outcome: Psychotherapy ‐ suicide‐related outcomes at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Figure 8

Trial Sequential Analysis on primary outcome: Psychotherapy ‐ suicide‐related outcomes at end of treatment

Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Psychotherapy compared with TAU, outcome: 1.5 Primary outcome: suicide‐related outcomes.

Figuras y tablas -
Figure 9

Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Psychotherapy compared with TAU, outcome: 1.5 Primary outcome: suicide‐related outcomes.

Trial Sequential Analysis on primary outcome: Psychotherapy ‐ psychosocial functioning at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Figure 10

Trial Sequential Analysis on primary outcome: Psychotherapy ‐ psychosocial functioning at end of treatment

Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Psychotherapy compared with TAU, outcome: 1.7 Primary outcome: psychosocial functioning.

Figuras y tablas -
Figure 11

Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Psychotherapy compared with TAU, outcome: 1.7 Primary outcome: psychosocial functioning.

Trial Sequential Analysis on secondary outcome: Psychotherapy ‐ depression at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Figure 12

Trial Sequential Analysis on secondary outcome: Psychotherapy ‐ depression at end of treatment

Comparison 1: Psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 1: Primary: BPD symptom severity (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1: Psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 1: Primary: BPD symptom severity (continuous)

Comparison 1: Psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 2: Primary: BPD symptom severity (dichotomous), at above 12 months follow‐up

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1: Psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 2: Primary: BPD symptom severity (dichotomous), at above 12 months follow‐up

Comparison 1: Psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 3: Primary: self‐harm (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1: Psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 3: Primary: self‐harm (continuous)

Comparison 1: Psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 4: Primary: self‐harm (dichotomous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1: Psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 4: Primary: self‐harm (dichotomous)

Comparison 1: Psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 5: Primary: suicide‐related outcomes (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1: Psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 5: Primary: suicide‐related outcomes (continuous)

Comparison 1: Psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 6: Primary: suicide‐related outcomes (dichotomous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1: Psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 6: Primary: suicide‐related outcomes (dichotomous)

Comparison 1: Psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 7: Primary: psychosocial functioning (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1: Psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 7: Primary: psychosocial functioning (continuous)

Comparison 1: Psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 8: Secondary: anger (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1: Psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 8: Secondary: anger (continuous)

Comparison 1: Psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 9: Secondary: affective instability (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.9

Comparison 1: Psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 9: Secondary: affective instability (continuous)

Comparison 1: Psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 10: Secondary: chronic feelings of emptiness (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.10

Comparison 1: Psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 10: Secondary: chronic feelings of emptiness (continuous)

Comparison 1: Psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 11: Secondary: impulsivity (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.11

Comparison 1: Psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 11: Secondary: impulsivity (continuous)

Comparison 1: Psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 12: Secondary: impulsivity (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.12

Comparison 1: Psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 12: Secondary: impulsivity (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Comparison 1: Psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 13: Secondary: interpersonal problems (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.13

Comparison 1: Psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 13: Secondary: interpersonal problems (continuous)

Comparison 1: Psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 14: Secondary: abandonment (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.14

Comparison 1: Psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 14: Secondary: abandonment (continuous)

Comparison 1: Psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 15: Secondary: identity disturbance (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.15

Comparison 1: Psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 15: Secondary: identity disturbance (continuous)

Comparison 1: Psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 16: Secondary: dissociation and psychotic‐like symptoms (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.16

Comparison 1: Psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 16: Secondary: dissociation and psychotic‐like symptoms (continuous)

Comparison 1: Psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 17: Secondary: depression (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.17

Comparison 1: Psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 17: Secondary: depression (continuous)

Comparison 1: Psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 18: Secondary: depression (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.18

Comparison 1: Psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 18: Secondary: depression (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Comparison 1: Psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 19: Secondary: attrition (dichotomous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.19

Comparison 1: Psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 19: Secondary: attrition (dichotomous)

Comparison 1: Psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 20: Secondary: non‐serious adverse effects (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.20

Comparison 1: Psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 20: Secondary: non‐serious adverse effects (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Comparison 1: Psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 21: Secondary: serious adverse effects (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.21

Comparison 1: Psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 21: Secondary: serious adverse effects (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Comparison 2: Acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) vs TAU, Outcome 1: Primary: BPD symptom severity (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2: Acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) vs TAU, Outcome 1: Primary: BPD symptom severity (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 2: Acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) vs TAU, Outcome 2: Secondary: affective instability (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2: Acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) vs TAU, Outcome 2: Secondary: affective instability (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 2: Acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) vs TAU, Outcome 3: Secondary: depression (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2: Acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) vs TAU, Outcome 3: Secondary: depression (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 2: Acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) vs TAU, Outcome 4: Secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2: Acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) vs TAU, Outcome 4: Secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Comparison 3: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) vs TAU, Outcome 1: Primary: BPD symptom severity (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) vs TAU, Outcome 1: Primary: BPD symptom severity (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 3: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) vs TAU, Outcome 2: Primary, self‐harm (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) vs TAU, Outcome 2: Primary, self‐harm (continuous)

Comparison 3: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) vs TAU, Outcome 3: Primary: suicide‐related outcomes (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.3

Comparison 3: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) vs TAU, Outcome 3: Primary: suicide‐related outcomes (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 3: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) vs TAU, Outcome 4: Primary: suicide‐related outcomes, attempts (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.4

Comparison 3: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) vs TAU, Outcome 4: Primary: suicide‐related outcomes, attempts (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Comparison 3: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) vs TAU, Outcome 5: Primary: psychosocial functioning (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.5

Comparison 3: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) vs TAU, Outcome 5: Primary: psychosocial functioning (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 3: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) vs TAU, Outcome 6: Secondary: anger (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.6

Comparison 3: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) vs TAU, Outcome 6: Secondary: anger (continuous)

Comparison 3: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) vs TAU, Outcome 7: Secondary: affective instability (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.7

Comparison 3: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) vs TAU, Outcome 7: Secondary: affective instability (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 3: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) vs TAU, Outcome 8: Secondary: chronic feelings of emptiness (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.8

Comparison 3: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) vs TAU, Outcome 8: Secondary: chronic feelings of emptiness (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 3: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) vs TAU, Outcome 9: Secondary: impulsivity (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.9

Comparison 3: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) vs TAU, Outcome 9: Secondary: impulsivity (continuous)

Comparison 3: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) vs TAU, Outcome 10: Secondary: interpersonal problems (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.10

Comparison 3: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) vs TAU, Outcome 10: Secondary: interpersonal problems (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 3: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) vs TAU, Outcome 11: Secondary: dissociation and psychotic‐like symptoms (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.11

Comparison 3: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) vs TAU, Outcome 11: Secondary: dissociation and psychotic‐like symptoms (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 3: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) vs TAU, Outcome 12: Secondary: depression (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.12

Comparison 3: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) vs TAU, Outcome 12: Secondary: depression (continuous)

Comparison 3: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) vs TAU, Outcome 13: Secondary: attrition (dichotomous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.13

Comparison 3: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) vs TAU, Outcome 13: Secondary: attrition (dichotomous)

Comparison 3: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) vs TAU, Outcome 14: Secondary: adverse effects (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.14

Comparison 3: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) vs TAU, Outcome 14: Secondary: adverse effects (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Comparison 3: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) vs TAU, Outcome 15: Secondary: serious adverse effects (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.15

Comparison 3: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) vs TAU, Outcome 15: Secondary: serious adverse effects (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Comparison 4: Mentalisation based therapy (MBT) vs TAU, Outcome 1: Primary: BPD symptom severity (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4: Mentalisation based therapy (MBT) vs TAU, Outcome 1: Primary: BPD symptom severity (continuous)

Comparison 4: Mentalisation based therapy (MBT) vs TAU, Outcome 2: Primary: self‐harm (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.2

Comparison 4: Mentalisation based therapy (MBT) vs TAU, Outcome 2: Primary: self‐harm (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 4: Mentalisation based therapy (MBT) vs TAU, Outcome 3: Primary: self‐harm (dichotomous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.3

Comparison 4: Mentalisation based therapy (MBT) vs TAU, Outcome 3: Primary: self‐harm (dichotomous)

Comparison 4: Mentalisation based therapy (MBT) vs TAU, Outcome 4: Primary: suicide‐related outcomes (dichotomous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.4

Comparison 4: Mentalisation based therapy (MBT) vs TAU, Outcome 4: Primary: suicide‐related outcomes (dichotomous)

Comparison 4: Mentalisation based therapy (MBT) vs TAU, Outcome 5: Primary: psychosocial functioning (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.5

Comparison 4: Mentalisation based therapy (MBT) vs TAU, Outcome 5: Primary: psychosocial functioning (continuous)

Comparison 4: Mentalisation based therapy (MBT) vs TAU, Outcome 6: Secondary: interpersonal problems (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.6

Comparison 4: Mentalisation based therapy (MBT) vs TAU, Outcome 6: Secondary: interpersonal problems (continuous)

Comparison 4: Mentalisation based therapy (MBT) vs TAU, Outcome 7: Secondary: depression (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.7

Comparison 4: Mentalisation based therapy (MBT) vs TAU, Outcome 7: Secondary: depression (continuous)

Comparison 4: Mentalisation based therapy (MBT) vs TAU, Outcome 8: Secondary: depression (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.8

Comparison 4: Mentalisation based therapy (MBT) vs TAU, Outcome 8: Secondary: depression (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Comparison 4: Mentalisation based therapy (MBT) vs TAU, Outcome 9: Secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.9

Comparison 4: Mentalisation based therapy (MBT) vs TAU, Outcome 9: Secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Comparison 4: Mentalisation based therapy (MBT) vs TAU, Outcome 10: Secondary: adverse effects (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.10

Comparison 4: Mentalisation based therapy (MBT) vs TAU, Outcome 10: Secondary: adverse effects (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Comparison 4: Mentalisation based therapy (MBT) vs TAU, Outcome 11: Mentalisation‐based treatment for eating disorders (MBT‐ED) versus specialist supportive clinical management (SSCM‐ED) (generic inverse variance)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.11

Comparison 4: Mentalisation based therapy (MBT) vs TAU, Outcome 11: Mentalisation‐based treatment for eating disorders (MBT‐ED) versus specialist supportive clinical management (SSCM‐ED) (generic inverse variance)

Comparison 5: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and related treatments vs TAU, Outcome 1: Primary: BPD symptom severity (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.1

Comparison 5: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and related treatments vs TAU, Outcome 1: Primary: BPD symptom severity (continuous)

Comparison 5: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and related treatments vs TAU, Outcome 2: Primary: BPD symptom severity (dichotomous), at above 12 months follow‐up

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.2

Comparison 5: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and related treatments vs TAU, Outcome 2: Primary: BPD symptom severity (dichotomous), at above 12 months follow‐up

Comparison 5: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and related treatments vs TAU, Outcome 3: Primary: self‐harm (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.3

Comparison 5: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and related treatments vs TAU, Outcome 3: Primary: self‐harm (continuous)

Comparison 5: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and related treatments vs TAU, Outcome 4: Primary: self‐harm (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.4

Comparison 5: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and related treatments vs TAU, Outcome 4: Primary: self‐harm (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Comparison 5: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and related treatments vs TAU, Outcome 5: Primary: suicide‐related outcomes (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.5

Comparison 5: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and related treatments vs TAU, Outcome 5: Primary: suicide‐related outcomes (continuous)

Comparison 5: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and related treatments vs TAU, Outcome 6: Primary: psychosocial functioning (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.6

Comparison 5: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and related treatments vs TAU, Outcome 6: Primary: psychosocial functioning (continuous)

Comparison 5: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and related treatments vs TAU, Outcome 7: Secondary: interpersonal problems (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.7

Comparison 5: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and related treatments vs TAU, Outcome 7: Secondary: interpersonal problems (continuous)

Comparison 5: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and related treatments vs TAU, Outcome 8: Secondary: dissociation and psychotic‐like symptoms (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.8

Comparison 5: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and related treatments vs TAU, Outcome 8: Secondary: dissociation and psychotic‐like symptoms (continuous)

Comparison 5: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and related treatments vs TAU, Outcome 9: Secondary: depression (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.9

Comparison 5: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and related treatments vs TAU, Outcome 9: Secondary: depression (continuous)

Comparison 5: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and related treatments vs TAU, Outcome 10: Secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.10

Comparison 5: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and related treatments vs TAU, Outcome 10: Secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Comparison 5: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and related treatments vs TAU, Outcome 11: Secondary: adverse effects (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.11

Comparison 5: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and related treatments vs TAU, Outcome 11: Secondary: adverse effects (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Comparison 6: Psychodynamic psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 1: Primary: BPD symptom severity (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.1

Comparison 6: Psychodynamic psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 1: Primary: BPD symptom severity (continuous)

Comparison 6: Psychodynamic psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 2: Primary: self‐harm (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.2

Comparison 6: Psychodynamic psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 2: Primary: self‐harm (continuous)

Comparison 6: Psychodynamic psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 3: Primary: suicide‐related outcomes (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.3

Comparison 6: Psychodynamic psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 3: Primary: suicide‐related outcomes (continuous)

Comparison 6: Psychodynamic psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 4: Primary: psychosocial functioning (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.4

Comparison 6: Psychodynamic psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 4: Primary: psychosocial functioning (continuous)

Comparison 6: Psychodynamic psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 5: Secondary: anger (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.5

Comparison 6: Psychodynamic psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 5: Secondary: anger (continuous)

Comparison 6: Psychodynamic psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 6: Secondary: affective instability (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.6

Comparison 6: Psychodynamic psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 6: Secondary: affective instability (continuous)

Comparison 6: Psychodynamic psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 7: Secondary: chronic feelings of emptiness (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.7

Comparison 6: Psychodynamic psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 7: Secondary: chronic feelings of emptiness (continuous)

Comparison 6: Psychodynamic psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 8: Secondary: impulsivity (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.8

Comparison 6: Psychodynamic psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 8: Secondary: impulsivity (continuous)

Comparison 6: Psychodynamic psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 9: Secondary: interpersonal problems (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.9

Comparison 6: Psychodynamic psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 9: Secondary: interpersonal problems (continuous)

Comparison 6: Psychodynamic psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 10: Secondary: abandonment (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.10

Comparison 6: Psychodynamic psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 10: Secondary: abandonment (continuous)

Comparison 6: Psychodynamic psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 11: Secondary: identity disturbance (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.11

Comparison 6: Psychodynamic psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 11: Secondary: identity disturbance (continuous)

Comparison 6: Psychodynamic psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 12: Secondary: dissociation and psychotic‐like symptoms (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.12

Comparison 6: Psychodynamic psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 12: Secondary: dissociation and psychotic‐like symptoms (continuous)

Comparison 6: Psychodynamic psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 13: Secondary: depression (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.13

Comparison 6: Psychodynamic psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 13: Secondary: depression (continuous)

Comparison 6: Psychodynamic psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 14: Secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.14

Comparison 6: Psychodynamic psychotherapy vs TAU, Outcome 14: Secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Comparison 7: Schema‐focused therapy (SFT) vs TAU, Outcome 1: Primary: BPD symptom severity (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.1

Comparison 7: Schema‐focused therapy (SFT) vs TAU, Outcome 1: Primary: BPD symptom severity (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 7: Schema‐focused therapy (SFT) vs TAU, Outcome 2: Primary: psychosocial functioning (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.2

Comparison 7: Schema‐focused therapy (SFT) vs TAU, Outcome 2: Primary: psychosocial functioning (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 7: Schema‐focused therapy (SFT) vs TAU, Outcome 3: Secondary: affective instability (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.3

Comparison 7: Schema‐focused therapy (SFT) vs TAU, Outcome 3: Secondary: affective instability (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 7: Schema‐focused therapy (SFT) vs TAU, Outcome 4: Secondary: impulsivity (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.4

Comparison 7: Schema‐focused therapy (SFT) vs TAU, Outcome 4: Secondary: impulsivity (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 7: Schema‐focused therapy (SFT) vs TAU, Outcome 5: Secondary: interpersonal problems (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.5

Comparison 7: Schema‐focused therapy (SFT) vs TAU, Outcome 5: Secondary: interpersonal problems (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 7: Schema‐focused therapy (SFT) vs TAU, Outcome 6: Secondary: dissociation and psychotic‐like symptoms (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.6

Comparison 7: Schema‐focused therapy (SFT) vs TAU, Outcome 6: Secondary: dissociation and psychotic‐like symptoms (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 7: Schema‐focused therapy (SFT) vs TAU, Outcome 7: Secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.7

Comparison 7: Schema‐focused therapy (SFT) vs TAU, Outcome 7: Secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Comparison 8: Systems training for emotional predictability and problem solving (STEPPS) vs TAU, Outcome 1: Primary: BPD symptom severity (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 8.1

Comparison 8: Systems training for emotional predictability and problem solving (STEPPS) vs TAU, Outcome 1: Primary: BPD symptom severity (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 8: Systems training for emotional predictability and problem solving (STEPPS) vs TAU, Outcome 2: Primary: self‐harm (dichtomous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 8.2

Comparison 8: Systems training for emotional predictability and problem solving (STEPPS) vs TAU, Outcome 2: Primary: self‐harm (dichtomous), at end of treatment

Comparison 8: Systems training for emotional predictability and problem solving (STEPPS) vs TAU, Outcome 3: Primary: psychosocial functioning (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 8.3

Comparison 8: Systems training for emotional predictability and problem solving (STEPPS) vs TAU, Outcome 3: Primary: psychosocial functioning (continuous)

Comparison 8: Systems training for emotional predictability and problem solving (STEPPS) vs TAU, Outcome 4: Secondary: affective instability (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 8.4

Comparison 8: Systems training for emotional predictability and problem solving (STEPPS) vs TAU, Outcome 4: Secondary: affective instability (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 8: Systems training for emotional predictability and problem solving (STEPPS) vs TAU, Outcome 5: Secondary: impulsivity (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 8.5

Comparison 8: Systems training for emotional predictability and problem solving (STEPPS) vs TAU, Outcome 5: Secondary: impulsivity (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 8: Systems training for emotional predictability and problem solving (STEPPS) vs TAU, Outcome 6: Secondary: impulsivity (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 8.6

Comparison 8: Systems training for emotional predictability and problem solving (STEPPS) vs TAU, Outcome 6: Secondary: impulsivity (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Comparison 8: Systems training for emotional predictability and problem solving (STEPPS) vs TAU, Outcome 7: Secondary: interpersonal problems (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 8.7

Comparison 8: Systems training for emotional predictability and problem solving (STEPPS) vs TAU, Outcome 7: Secondary: interpersonal problems (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 8: Systems training for emotional predictability and problem solving (STEPPS) vs TAU, Outcome 8: Secondary: dissociation and psychotic‐like symptoms (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 8.8

Comparison 8: Systems training for emotional predictability and problem solving (STEPPS) vs TAU, Outcome 8: Secondary: dissociation and psychotic‐like symptoms (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 8: Systems training for emotional predictability and problem solving (STEPPS) vs TAU, Outcome 9: Secondary: depression (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 8.9

Comparison 8: Systems training for emotional predictability and problem solving (STEPPS) vs TAU, Outcome 9: Secondary: depression (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 8: Systems training for emotional predictability and problem solving (STEPPS) vs TAU, Outcome 10: Secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 8.10

Comparison 8: Systems training for emotional predictability and problem solving (STEPPS) vs TAU, Outcome 10: Secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Comparison 9: Cognitive analytic therapy (CAT) vs TAU, Outcome 1: Primary: suicide‐related outcomes (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 9.1

Comparison 9: Cognitive analytic therapy (CAT) vs TAU, Outcome 1: Primary: suicide‐related outcomes (continuous)

Comparison 9: Cognitive analytic therapy (CAT) vs TAU, Outcome 2: Primary: psychosocial functioning (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 9.2

Comparison 9: Cognitive analytic therapy (CAT) vs TAU, Outcome 2: Primary: psychosocial functioning (continuous)

Comparison 9: Cognitive analytic therapy (CAT) vs TAU, Outcome 3: Secondary: anger (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 9.3

Comparison 9: Cognitive analytic therapy (CAT) vs TAU, Outcome 3: Secondary: anger (continuous)

Comparison 9: Cognitive analytic therapy (CAT) vs TAU, Outcome 4: Secondary: dissociation and psychotic‐like symptoms (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 9.4

Comparison 9: Cognitive analytic therapy (CAT) vs TAU, Outcome 4: Secondary: dissociation and psychotic‐like symptoms (continuous)

Comparison 9: Cognitive analytic therapy (CAT) vs TAU, Outcome 5: Secondary: depression (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 9.5

Comparison 9: Cognitive analytic therapy (CAT) vs TAU, Outcome 5: Secondary: depression (continuous)

Comparison 9: Cognitive analytic therapy (CAT) vs TAU, Outcome 6: Secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 9.6

Comparison 9: Cognitive analytic therapy (CAT) vs TAU, Outcome 6: Secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Comparison 10: Motivation feedback (MF) vs TAU, Outcome 1: Primary: psychosocial functioning, at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 10.1

Comparison 10: Motivation feedback (MF) vs TAU, Outcome 1: Primary: psychosocial functioning, at end of treatment

Comparison 11: Psychoeducation vs TAU, Outcome 1: Secondary: depression (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 11.1

Comparison 11: Psychoeducation vs TAU, Outcome 1: Secondary: depression (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 11: Psychoeducation vs TAU, Outcome 2: Secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 11.2

Comparison 11: Psychoeducation vs TAU, Outcome 2: Secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Comparison 12: Transference‐focused psychotherapy (TFP) vs TAU, Outcome 1: Primary: BPD symptom severity (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 12.1

Comparison 12: Transference‐focused psychotherapy (TFP) vs TAU, Outcome 1: Primary: BPD symptom severity (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 12: Transference‐focused psychotherapy (TFP) vs TAU, Outcome 2: Primary: self‐harm (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 12.2

Comparison 12: Transference‐focused psychotherapy (TFP) vs TAU, Outcome 2: Primary: self‐harm (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Comparison 12: Transference‐focused psychotherapy (TFP) vs TAU, Outcome 3: Primary: suicide‐related outcomes (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 12.3

Comparison 12: Transference‐focused psychotherapy (TFP) vs TAU, Outcome 3: Primary: suicide‐related outcomes (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Comparison 12: Transference‐focused psychotherapy (TFP) vs TAU, Outcome 4: Primary: psychosocial functioning (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 12.4

Comparison 12: Transference‐focused psychotherapy (TFP) vs TAU, Outcome 4: Primary: psychosocial functioning (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 12: Transference‐focused psychotherapy (TFP) vs TAU, Outcome 5: Secondary: depression (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 12.5

Comparison 12: Transference‐focused psychotherapy (TFP) vs TAU, Outcome 5: Secondary: depression (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 12: Transference‐focused psychotherapy (TFP) vs TAU, Outcome 6: Secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 12.6

Comparison 12: Transference‐focused psychotherapy (TFP) vs TAU, Outcome 6: Secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Comparison 13: Once‐only interventions (individual setting) vs TAU, Outcome 1: Primary: self‐harm (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 13.1

Comparison 13: Once‐only interventions (individual setting) vs TAU, Outcome 1: Primary: self‐harm (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 13: Once‐only interventions (individual setting) vs TAU, Outcome 2: Primary: psychosocial functioning (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 13.2

Comparison 13: Once‐only interventions (individual setting) vs TAU, Outcome 2: Primary: psychosocial functioning (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 13: Once‐only interventions (individual setting) vs TAU, Outcome 3: Secondary: depression (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 13.3

Comparison 13: Once‐only interventions (individual setting) vs TAU, Outcome 3: Secondary: depression (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 13: Once‐only interventions (individual setting) vs TAU, Outcome 4: Secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 13.4

Comparison 13: Once‐only interventions (individual setting) vs TAU, Outcome 4: Secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Comparison 14: Eclectic treatments vs TAU, Outcome 1: Primary: BPD symptom severity (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 14.1

Comparison 14: Eclectic treatments vs TAU, Outcome 1: Primary: BPD symptom severity (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 14: Eclectic treatments vs TAU, Outcome 2: Primary: self‐harm (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 14.2

Comparison 14: Eclectic treatments vs TAU, Outcome 2: Primary: self‐harm (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 14: Eclectic treatments vs TAU, Outcome 3: Primary: suicide‐related outcomes (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 14.3

Comparison 14: Eclectic treatments vs TAU, Outcome 3: Primary: suicide‐related outcomes (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 14: Eclectic treatments vs TAU, Outcome 4: Primary: psychosocial functioning (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 14.4

Comparison 14: Eclectic treatments vs TAU, Outcome 4: Primary: psychosocial functioning (continuous)

Comparison 14: Eclectic treatments vs TAU, Outcome 5: Secondary: anger (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 14.5

Comparison 14: Eclectic treatments vs TAU, Outcome 5: Secondary: anger (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 14: Eclectic treatments vs TAU, Outcome 6: Secondary: affective instability (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 14.6

Comparison 14: Eclectic treatments vs TAU, Outcome 6: Secondary: affective instability (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 14: Eclectic treatments vs TAU, Outcome 7: Secondary: chronic feelings of emptiness (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 14.7

Comparison 14: Eclectic treatments vs TAU, Outcome 7: Secondary: chronic feelings of emptiness (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 14: Eclectic treatments vs TAU, Outcome 8: Secondary: impulsivity (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 14.8

Comparison 14: Eclectic treatments vs TAU, Outcome 8: Secondary: impulsivity (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 14: Eclectic treatments vs TAU, Outcome 9: Secondary: interpersonal problems (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 14.9

Comparison 14: Eclectic treatments vs TAU, Outcome 9: Secondary: interpersonal problems (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 14: Eclectic treatments vs TAU, Outcome 10: Secondary: abandonment (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 14.10

Comparison 14: Eclectic treatments vs TAU, Outcome 10: Secondary: abandonment (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 14: Eclectic treatments vs TAU, Outcome 11: Secondary: identity disturbance (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 14.11

Comparison 14: Eclectic treatments vs TAU, Outcome 11: Secondary: identity disturbance (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 14: Eclectic treatments vs TAU, Outcome 12: Secondary: depression (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 14.12

Comparison 14: Eclectic treatments vs TAU, Outcome 12: Secondary: depression (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 14: Eclectic treatments vs TAU, Outcome 13: Secondary: attrition (dichotomuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 14.13

Comparison 14: Eclectic treatments vs TAU, Outcome 13: Secondary: attrition (dichotomuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 14: Eclectic treatments vs TAU, Outcome 14: Secondary: adverse effects (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 14.14

Comparison 14: Eclectic treatments vs TAU, Outcome 14: Secondary: adverse effects (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Comparison 15: Psychotherapy vs waiting list or no treatment, Outcome 1: Primary: BPD symptom severity (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 15.1

Comparison 15: Psychotherapy vs waiting list or no treatment, Outcome 1: Primary: BPD symptom severity (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 15: Psychotherapy vs waiting list or no treatment, Outcome 2: Primary: self‐harm (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 15.2

Comparison 15: Psychotherapy vs waiting list or no treatment, Outcome 2: Primary: self‐harm (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 15: Psychotherapy vs waiting list or no treatment, Outcome 3: Primary: suicide‐related outcomes (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 15.3

Comparison 15: Psychotherapy vs waiting list or no treatment, Outcome 3: Primary: suicide‐related outcomes (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 15: Psychotherapy vs waiting list or no treatment, Outcome 4: Primary: psychosocial functioning (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 15.4

Comparison 15: Psychotherapy vs waiting list or no treatment, Outcome 4: Primary: psychosocial functioning (continuous)

Comparison 15: Psychotherapy vs waiting list or no treatment, Outcome 5: Secondary: anger (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 15.5

Comparison 15: Psychotherapy vs waiting list or no treatment, Outcome 5: Secondary: anger (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 15: Psychotherapy vs waiting list or no treatment, Outcome 6: Secondary: affective instability (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 15.6

Comparison 15: Psychotherapy vs waiting list or no treatment, Outcome 6: Secondary: affective instability (continuous)

Comparison 15: Psychotherapy vs waiting list or no treatment, Outcome 7: Secondary: chronic feelings of emptiness (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 15.7

Comparison 15: Psychotherapy vs waiting list or no treatment, Outcome 7: Secondary: chronic feelings of emptiness (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 15: Psychotherapy vs waiting list or no treatment, Outcome 8: Secondary: impulsivity (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 15.8

Comparison 15: Psychotherapy vs waiting list or no treatment, Outcome 8: Secondary: impulsivity (continuous)

Comparison 15: Psychotherapy vs waiting list or no treatment, Outcome 9: Secondary: interpersonal problems (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 15.9

Comparison 15: Psychotherapy vs waiting list or no treatment, Outcome 9: Secondary: interpersonal problems (continuous)

Comparison 15: Psychotherapy vs waiting list or no treatment, Outcome 10: Secondary: abandonment (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 15.10

Comparison 15: Psychotherapy vs waiting list or no treatment, Outcome 10: Secondary: abandonment (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 15: Psychotherapy vs waiting list or no treatment, Outcome 11: Secondary: identity disturbance (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 15.11

Comparison 15: Psychotherapy vs waiting list or no treatment, Outcome 11: Secondary: identity disturbance (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 15: Psychotherapy vs waiting list or no treatment, Outcome 12: Secondary: dissociation and psychotic‐like symptoms (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 15.12

Comparison 15: Psychotherapy vs waiting list or no treatment, Outcome 12: Secondary: dissociation and psychotic‐like symptoms (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 15: Psychotherapy vs waiting list or no treatment, Outcome 13: Secondary: depression (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 15.13

Comparison 15: Psychotherapy vs waiting list or no treatment, Outcome 13: Secondary: depression (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 15: Psychotherapy vs waiting list or no treatment, Outcome 14: Secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 15.14

Comparison 15: Psychotherapy vs waiting list or no treatment, Outcome 14: Secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Comparison 16: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) vs waiting list or no treatment, Outcome 1: Primary: BPD symptom severity (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 16.1

Comparison 16: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) vs waiting list or no treatment, Outcome 1: Primary: BPD symptom severity (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 16: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) vs waiting list or no treatment, Outcome 2: Primary: self‐harm (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 16.2

Comparison 16: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) vs waiting list or no treatment, Outcome 2: Primary: self‐harm (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 16: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) vs waiting list or no treatment, Outcome 3: Primary: suicide‐related outcomes (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 16.3

Comparison 16: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) vs waiting list or no treatment, Outcome 3: Primary: suicide‐related outcomes (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 16: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) vs waiting list or no treatment, Outcome 4: Primary: psychosocial functioning (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 16.4

Comparison 16: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) vs waiting list or no treatment, Outcome 4: Primary: psychosocial functioning (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 16: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) vs waiting list or no treatment, Outcome 5: Secondary: anger (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 16.5

Comparison 16: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) vs waiting list or no treatment, Outcome 5: Secondary: anger (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 16: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) vs waiting list or no treatment, Outcome 6: Secondary: affective instability (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 16.6

Comparison 16: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) vs waiting list or no treatment, Outcome 6: Secondary: affective instability (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 16: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) vs waiting list or no treatment, Outcome 7: Secondary: impulsivity (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 16.7

Comparison 16: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) vs waiting list or no treatment, Outcome 7: Secondary: impulsivity (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 16: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) vs waiting list or no treatment, Outcome 8: Secondary: dissociation and psychotic‐like symptoms (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 16.8

Comparison 16: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) vs waiting list or no treatment, Outcome 8: Secondary: dissociation and psychotic‐like symptoms (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 16: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) vs waiting list or no treatment, Outcome 9: Secondary: depression (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 16.9

Comparison 16: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) vs waiting list or no treatment, Outcome 9: Secondary: depression (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 16: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) vs waiting list or no treatment, Outcome 10: DBT‐couple therapy (CDBT) vs waiting list (generic inverse variance)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 16.10

Comparison 16: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) vs waiting list or no treatment, Outcome 10: DBT‐couple therapy (CDBT) vs waiting list (generic inverse variance)

Comparison 17: Schema‐focused therapy (SFT) vs no treatment, Outcome 1: Primary: suicide‐related outcomes (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 17.1

Comparison 17: Schema‐focused therapy (SFT) vs no treatment, Outcome 1: Primary: suicide‐related outcomes (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 17: Schema‐focused therapy (SFT) vs no treatment, Outcome 2: Secondary: depression (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 17.2

Comparison 17: Schema‐focused therapy (SFT) vs no treatment, Outcome 2: Secondary: depression (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 18: Interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) vs waiting list, Outcome 1: Primary: BPD symptom severity (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 18.1

Comparison 18: Interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) vs waiting list, Outcome 1: Primary: BPD symptom severity (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 18: Interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) vs waiting list, Outcome 2: Primary: self‐harm (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 18.2

Comparison 18: Interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) vs waiting list, Outcome 2: Primary: self‐harm (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 18: Interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) vs waiting list, Outcome 3: Primary: psychosocial functioning (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 18.3

Comparison 18: Interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) vs waiting list, Outcome 3: Primary: psychosocial functioning (continuous)

Comparison 18: Interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) vs waiting list, Outcome 4: Secondary: anger (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 18.4

Comparison 18: Interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) vs waiting list, Outcome 4: Secondary: anger (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 18: Interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) vs waiting list, Outcome 5: Secondary: affective instability (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 18.5

Comparison 18: Interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) vs waiting list, Outcome 5: Secondary: affective instability (continuous)

Comparison 18: Interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) vs waiting list, Outcome 6: Secondary: chronic feelings of emptiness (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 18.6

Comparison 18: Interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) vs waiting list, Outcome 6: Secondary: chronic feelings of emptiness (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 18: Interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) vs waiting list, Outcome 7: Secondary: impulsivity (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 18.7

Comparison 18: Interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) vs waiting list, Outcome 7: Secondary: impulsivity (continuous)

Comparison 18: Interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) vs waiting list, Outcome 8: Secondary: interpersonal problems (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 18.8

Comparison 18: Interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) vs waiting list, Outcome 8: Secondary: interpersonal problems (continuous)

Comparison 18: Interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) vs waiting list, Outcome 9: Secondary: abandonment (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 18.9

Comparison 18: Interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) vs waiting list, Outcome 9: Secondary: abandonment (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 18: Interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) vs waiting list, Outcome 10: Secondary: identity disturbance (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 18.10

Comparison 18: Interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) vs waiting list, Outcome 10: Secondary: identity disturbance (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 18: Interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) vs waiting list, Outcome 11: Secondary: dissociation and psychotic‐like symptoms (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 18.11

Comparison 18: Interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) vs waiting list, Outcome 11: Secondary: dissociation and psychotic‐like symptoms (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 18: Interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) vs waiting list, Outcome 12: Secondary outcome: depression (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 18.12

Comparison 18: Interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) vs waiting list, Outcome 12: Secondary outcome: depression (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 18: Interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) vs waiting list, Outcome 13: Secondary outcome: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 18.13

Comparison 18: Interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) vs waiting list, Outcome 13: Secondary outcome: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Comparison 19: Once‐only interventions (individual setting) vs waiting list, Outcome 1: Secondary: impulsivity (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 19.1

Comparison 19: Once‐only interventions (individual setting) vs waiting list, Outcome 1: Secondary: impulsivity (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 19: Once‐only interventions (individual setting) vs waiting list, Outcome 2: Secondary: interpersonal problems (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 19.2

Comparison 19: Once‐only interventions (individual setting) vs waiting list, Outcome 2: Secondary: interpersonal problems (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 19: Once‐only interventions (individual setting) vs waiting list, Outcome 3: Secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 19.3

Comparison 19: Once‐only interventions (individual setting) vs waiting list, Outcome 3: Secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Comparison 20: Eclectic treatments vs waiting list, Outcome 1: Primary outcome: psychosocial functioning (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 20.1

Comparison 20: Eclectic treatments vs waiting list, Outcome 1: Primary outcome: psychosocial functioning (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 20: Eclectic treatments vs waiting list, Outcome 2: Secondary outcome: interpersonal problems (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 20.2

Comparison 20: Eclectic treatments vs waiting list, Outcome 2: Secondary outcome: interpersonal problems (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 21: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) and related treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 1: Standard DBT (DBT) vs client‐centred therapy (CCT) (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 21.1

Comparison 21: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) and related treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 1: Standard DBT (DBT) vs client‐centred therapy (CCT) (continuous)

Comparison 21: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) and related treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 2: DBT vs CCT, secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 21.2

Comparison 21: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) and related treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 2: DBT vs CCT, secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Comparison 21: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) and related treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 3: Standard DBT (DBT) vs good psychiatric management (GPM) (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 21.3

Comparison 21: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) and related treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 3: Standard DBT (DBT) vs good psychiatric management (GPM) (continuous)

Comparison 21: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) and related treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 4: DBT vs GPM, secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 21.4

Comparison 21: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) and related treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 4: DBT vs GPM, secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Comparison 21: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) and related treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 5: Standard DBT (DBT) vs individual DBT therapy + activities group (DBT‐I) (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 21.5

Comparison 21: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) and related treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 5: Standard DBT (DBT) vs individual DBT therapy + activities group (DBT‐I) (continuous)

Comparison 21: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) and related treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 6: DBT vs DBT‐I, secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 21.6

Comparison 21: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) and related treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 6: DBT vs DBT‐I, secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Comparison 21: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) and related treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 7: Standard DBT (DBT) vs skills training group + individual case management (DBT‐S) (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 21.7

Comparison 21: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) and related treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 7: Standard DBT (DBT) vs skills training group + individual case management (DBT‐S) (continuous)

Comparison 21: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) and related treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 8: DBT vs DBT‐S, secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at 6‐12 months follow‐up

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 21.8

Comparison 21: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) and related treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 8: DBT vs DBT‐S, secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at 6‐12 months follow‐up

Comparison 21: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) and related treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 9: Standard DBT (DBT) vs step‐down DBT (DBT‐SD) (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 21.9

Comparison 21: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) and related treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 9: Standard DBT (DBT) vs step‐down DBT (DBT‐SD) (continuous)

Comparison 21: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) and related treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 10: DBT vs DBT‐SD, secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 21.10

Comparison 21: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) and related treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 10: DBT vs DBT‐SD, secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Comparison 21: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) and related treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 11: Standard DBT (DBT) vs DBT Prolonged Exposure (PE) (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 21.11

Comparison 21: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) and related treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 11: Standard DBT (DBT) vs DBT Prolonged Exposure (PE) (continuous)

Comparison 21: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) and related treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 12: DBT vs DBT‐PE, secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at 0‐6 months follow‐up

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 21.12

Comparison 21: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) and related treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 12: DBT vs DBT‐PE, secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at 0‐6 months follow‐up

Comparison 21: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) and related treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 13: DBT skills group + case management (DBT‐S) vs DBT individual therapy + activity group (DBT‐I) (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 21.13

Comparison 21: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) and related treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 13: DBT skills group + case management (DBT‐S) vs DBT individual therapy + activity group (DBT‐I) (continuous)

Comparison 21: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) and related treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 14: DBT‐S vs DBT‐I, secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at 6‐12 months follow‐up

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 21.14

Comparison 21: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) and related treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 14: DBT‐S vs DBT‐I, secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at 6‐12 months follow‐up

Comparison 21: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) and related treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 15: DBT skills group (DBT‐S) vs cognitive therapy group (CT‐G) (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 21.15

Comparison 21: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) and related treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 15: DBT skills group (DBT‐S) vs cognitive therapy group (CT‐G) (continuous)

Comparison 21: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) and related treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 16: DBT‐S vs CT‐G, secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 21.16

Comparison 21: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) and related treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 16: DBT‐S vs CT‐G, secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Comparison 21: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) and related treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 17: DBT skills group (DBT‐S) vs schema‐focused therapy group (SFT‐G)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 21.17

Comparison 21: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) and related treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 17: DBT skills group (DBT‐S) vs schema‐focused therapy group (SFT‐G)

Comparison 21: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) and related treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 18: DBT mindfulness group (DBT‐M) vs DBT interpersonal effectiveness group (DBT‐IE) (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 21.18

Comparison 21: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) and related treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 18: DBT mindfulness group (DBT‐M) vs DBT interpersonal effectiveness group (DBT‐IE) (continuous)

Comparison 21: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) and related treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 19: DBT‐M vs DBT‐IE, secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 21.19

Comparison 21: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) and related treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 19: DBT‐M vs DBT‐IE, secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Comparison 21: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) and related treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 20: DBT mindfulness group (DBT‐M) vs loving‐kindness and compassion meditation (LK/CM), primary: BPD symptom severity (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 21.20

Comparison 21: Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) and related treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 20: DBT mindfulness group (DBT‐M) vs loving‐kindness and compassion meditation (LK/CM), primary: BPD symptom severity (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 22: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and related treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 1: CBT vs trauma‐ and anxiety‐related group psychoeducation (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 22.1

Comparison 22: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and related treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 1: CBT vs trauma‐ and anxiety‐related group psychoeducation (continuous)

Comparison 22: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and related treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 2: CBT vs trauma‐ and anxiety‐related group psychoeducation, secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 22.2

Comparison 22: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and related treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 2: CBT vs trauma‐ and anxiety‐related group psychoeducation, secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Comparison 22: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and related treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 3: CBT vs interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 22.3

Comparison 22: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and related treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 3: CBT vs interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) (continuous)

Comparison 22: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and related treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 4: CBT vs IPT, secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 22.4

Comparison 22: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and related treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 4: CBT vs IPT, secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Comparison 22: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and related treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 5: CBT vs Rogerian supportive therapy (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 22.5

Comparison 22: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and related treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 5: CBT vs Rogerian supportive therapy (continuous)

Comparison 22: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and related treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 6: CBT vs Rogerian supportive therapy, secondary: attrition (dichotomous), end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 22.6

Comparison 22: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and related treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 6: CBT vs Rogerian supportive therapy, secondary: attrition (dichotomous), end of treatment

Comparison 22: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and related treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 7: MACT (Manual‐assisted Cognitive Therapy) vs MACT + therapeutic assessment (MACT + TA) (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 22.7

Comparison 22: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and related treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 7: MACT (Manual‐assisted Cognitive Therapy) vs MACT + therapeutic assessment (MACT + TA) (continuous)

Comparison 22: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and related treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 8: MACT vs MACT + TA, secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 22.8

Comparison 22: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and related treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 8: MACT vs MACT + TA, secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Comparison 22: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and related treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 9: Meta‐Cognitive training for BPD (B‐MCT) vs progressive muscle relaxation training (PMR)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 22.9

Comparison 22: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and related treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 9: Meta‐Cognitive training for BPD (B‐MCT) vs progressive muscle relaxation training (PMR)

Comparison 22: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and related treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 10: B‐MCT vs progressive muscle relaxation (PMR) training + TAU (dichotomous). Secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 22.10

Comparison 22: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and related treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 10: B‐MCT vs progressive muscle relaxation (PMR) training + TAU (dichotomous). Secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Comparison 22: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and related treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 11: MOTR (Motive‐Oriented Therapeutic Relationship) vs Good Psychiatric Management (GPM) (continuous)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 22.11

Comparison 22: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and related treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 11: MOTR (Motive‐Oriented Therapeutic Relationship) vs Good Psychiatric Management (GPM) (continuous)

Comparison 22: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and related treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 12: MOTR vs (GPM), secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 22.12

Comparison 22: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and related treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 12: MOTR vs (GPM), secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Comparison 23: Schema‐focused therapy (SFT) vs active treatment, Outcome 1: SFT vs TFP. Primary: BPD symptom severity (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 23.1

Comparison 23: Schema‐focused therapy (SFT) vs active treatment, Outcome 1: SFT vs TFP. Primary: BPD symptom severity (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 23: Schema‐focused therapy (SFT) vs active treatment, Outcome 2: SFT vs TFP. Secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at 0‐6 months follow‐up

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 23.2

Comparison 23: Schema‐focused therapy (SFT) vs active treatment, Outcome 2: SFT vs TFP. Secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at 0‐6 months follow‐up

Comparison 23: Schema‐focused therapy (SFT) vs active treatment, Outcome 3: SFT vs SFT + therapist availability (TA). Primary: BPD symptom severity (continuous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 23.3

Comparison 23: Schema‐focused therapy (SFT) vs active treatment, Outcome 3: SFT vs SFT + therapist availability (TA). Primary: BPD symptom severity (continuous), at end of treatment

Comparison 23: Schema‐focused therapy (SFT) vs active treatment, Outcome 4: SFT vs SFT + TA. Secondary: attrition (dichotomous), 0‐6 months follow‐up

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 23.4

Comparison 23: Schema‐focused therapy (SFT) vs active treatment, Outcome 4: SFT vs SFT + TA. Secondary: attrition (dichotomous), 0‐6 months follow‐up

Comparison 24: Systems training for emotional predictability and problem solving‐based psychoeducation (STEPPS‐PE) vs cognitive rehabilitation (CR), Outcome 1: STEPPS‐PE vs CR

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 24.1

Comparison 24: Systems training for emotional predictability and problem solving‐based psychoeducation (STEPPS‐PE) vs cognitive rehabilitation (CR), Outcome 1: STEPPS‐PE vs CR

Comparison 24: Systems training for emotional predictability and problem solving‐based psychoeducation (STEPPS‐PE) vs cognitive rehabilitation (CR), Outcome 2: STEPPS‐PE vs CR. Secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 24.2

Comparison 24: Systems training for emotional predictability and problem solving‐based psychoeducation (STEPPS‐PE) vs cognitive rehabilitation (CR), Outcome 2: STEPPS‐PE vs CR. Secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Comparison 25: Eclectic treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 1: Combined inpatient and outpatient psychotherapy versus outpatient psychotherapy

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 25.1

Comparison 25: Eclectic treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 1: Combined inpatient and outpatient psychotherapy versus outpatient psychotherapy

Comparison 25: Eclectic treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 2: Combined inpatient and outpatient psychotherapy versus outpatient psychotherapy. Secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 25.2

Comparison 25: Eclectic treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 2: Combined inpatient and outpatient psychotherapy versus outpatient psychotherapy. Secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment

Comparison 25: Eclectic treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 3: integrative BPD‐oriented adolescent family therapy (I‐BAFT) vs individual drug counselling (IDC)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 25.3

Comparison 25: Eclectic treatments vs active treatment, Outcome 3: integrative BPD‐oriented adolescent family therapy (I‐BAFT) vs individual drug counselling (IDC)

Comparison 26: Subgroup analysis: therapeutic approaches, Outcome 1: BPD symptom severity

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 26.1

Comparison 26: Subgroup analysis: therapeutic approaches, Outcome 1: BPD symptom severity

Comparison 26: Subgroup analysis: therapeutic approaches, Outcome 2: Psychosocial functioning

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 26.2

Comparison 26: Subgroup analysis: therapeutic approaches, Outcome 2: Psychosocial functioning

Comparison 27: Subgroup analysis: age, Outcome 1: BPD symptom severity

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 27.1

Comparison 27: Subgroup analysis: age, Outcome 1: BPD symptom severity

Comparison 28: Subgroup analysis: duration, Outcome 1: BPD symptom severity

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 28.1

Comparison 28: Subgroup analysis: duration, Outcome 1: BPD symptom severity

Comparison 28: Subgroup analysis: duration, Outcome 2: Psychosocial functioning

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 28.2

Comparison 28: Subgroup analysis: duration, Outcome 2: Psychosocial functioning

Comparison 29: Subgroup analysis: mode of therapy, Outcome 1: BPD symptom severity

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 29.1

Comparison 29: Subgroup analysis: mode of therapy, Outcome 1: BPD symptom severity

Comparison 29: Subgroup analysis: mode of therapy, Outcome 2: Psychosocial functioning

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 29.2

Comparison 29: Subgroup analysis: mode of therapy, Outcome 2: Psychosocial functioning

Comparison 30: Subgroup analysis: setting, Outcome 1: BPD symptom severity

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 30.1

Comparison 30: Subgroup analysis: setting, Outcome 1: BPD symptom severity

Comparison 30: Subgroup analysis: setting, Outcome 2: Psychosocial functioning

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 30.2

Comparison 30: Subgroup analysis: setting, Outcome 2: Psychosocial functioning

Comparison 31: Subgroup analysis: types of raters, Outcome 1: BPD symptom severity

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 31.1

Comparison 31: Subgroup analysis: types of raters, Outcome 1: BPD symptom severity

Comparison 31: Subgroup analysis: types of raters, Outcome 2: Psychosocial functioning

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 31.2

Comparison 31: Subgroup analysis: types of raters, Outcome 2: Psychosocial functioning

Comparison 32: Subgroup analysis: types of TAU, Outcome 1: BPD symptom severity

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 32.1

Comparison 32: Subgroup analysis: types of TAU, Outcome 1: BPD symptom severity

Comparison 32: Subgroup analysis: types of TAU, Outcome 2: Psychosocial functioning

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 32.2

Comparison 32: Subgroup analysis: types of TAU, Outcome 2: Psychosocial functioning

Comparison 33: Subgroup analysis: type of comparison group, Outcome 1: BPD symptom severity

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 33.1

Comparison 33: Subgroup analysis: type of comparison group, Outcome 1: BPD symptom severity

Comparison 33: Subgroup analysis: type of comparison group, Outcome 2: Psychosocial functioning

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 33.2

Comparison 33: Subgroup analysis: type of comparison group, Outcome 2: Psychosocial functioning

Comparison 34: Subgroup analysis: types of scales, Outcome 1: BPD symptom severity

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 34.1

Comparison 34: Subgroup analysis: types of scales, Outcome 1: BPD symptom severity

Comparison 34: Subgroup analysis: types of scales, Outcome 2: Psychosocial functioning

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 34.2

Comparison 34: Subgroup analysis: types of scales, Outcome 2: Psychosocial functioning

Comparison 35: TSA sensitivity analyses: psychotherapy versus TAU, Outcome 1: Primary: BPD symptom severity, at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 35.1

Comparison 35: TSA sensitivity analyses: psychotherapy versus TAU, Outcome 1: Primary: BPD symptom severity, at end of treatment

Comparison 35: TSA sensitivity analyses: psychotherapy versus TAU, Outcome 2: Primary: self‐harm

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 35.2

Comparison 35: TSA sensitivity analyses: psychotherapy versus TAU, Outcome 2: Primary: self‐harm

Comparison 35: TSA sensitivity analyses: psychotherapy versus TAU, Outcome 3: Primary: suicide‐related outcomes

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 35.3

Comparison 35: TSA sensitivity analyses: psychotherapy versus TAU, Outcome 3: Primary: suicide‐related outcomes

Comparison 35: TSA sensitivity analyses: psychotherapy versus TAU, Outcome 4: Primary: psychosocial functioning, at end of treatment

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 35.4

Comparison 35: TSA sensitivity analyses: psychotherapy versus TAU, Outcome 4: Primary: psychosocial functioning, at end of treatment

Comparison 35: TSA sensitivity analyses: psychotherapy versus TAU, Outcome 5: Secondary: depression

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 35.5

Comparison 35: TSA sensitivity analyses: psychotherapy versus TAU, Outcome 5: Secondary: depression

Summary of findings 1. Psychotherapy versus treatment‐as‐usual

Psychotherapy versus treatment‐as‐usual

Patient or population: borderline personality disorder

Settings: inpatient and outpatient

Intervention: psychotherapy

Comparison: treatment‐as‐usual (TAU)

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect(95% CI)

Number of participants

(RCTs)

Quality of the evidence

(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

TAU

Psychotherapy

BPD symptom severity

Measured by: clinicians and self‐rated

Timing of outcome assessment: end of treatment

The mean score in the intervention groups was 0.52 SD lower (0.70 lower to 0.33 lower)

1244 

(22 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊕⊝

Moderatea

The SMD of −0.52 corresponds to −3.6 on the Zanarini BPD scale. The MIREDIF on this scale is 3.0 points

TSA adjusted Cl = −5.49 to −1.90 on the Zanarini BPD scale

TSA RIS = 901

Self‐harm (frequency)

Measured by: clinicians and self‐rated

Timing of outcome assessment: end of treatment

The mean score in the intervention groups was 0.32 SD lower (0.49 lower to 0.14 lower)

616

(13 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Lowa,b

The SMD of −0. 32 corresponds to −0.82 on the DSHI. The MIREDIF on this scale is −1.25 points (½ SD)

TSA adjusted CI = −0.59 to −0.08 on the DSHI

TSA RIS = 97

Suicide‐related outcomes (suicidality)

Measured by: clinicians and self‐rated

Timing of outcome assessment: end of treatment

The mean score in the intervention groups was 0.34 SD lower (0.57 lower to 0.11 lower)

666

(13 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊝⊝

Lowa,b

The SMD of −0. 34 corresponds to −0.11 on the SASII. The MIREDIF on this scale is −0.17 points (½ SD)

TSA adjusted CI = −0.18 to −0.04 on the SASII

TSA RIS = 253

Psychosocial functioning

Measured by: clinicians and self‐rated

Timing of outcome assessment: end of treatment

The mean score in the intervention groups was 0.45 SD lower (0.68 lower to 0.22 lower)

1314

(22 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Lowa,c

The SMD of −0.45 corresponds to −2.8 on the GAF. The MIREDIF on this scale is −4.0 points

TSA adjusted CI = −3.97 to −1.94 on the GAF

TSA RIS = 947

Depression

Measured by: clinicians and self‐rated

Timing of outcome assessment: end of treatment

The mean score in the intervention groups was 0.39 SD lower (0.61 lower to 0.17 lower)

1568

(22 RCTs)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
Verylowa,b,c

The SMD of ‐0.45 corresponds to −2.45 on the Hamilton Depression Scale. The MIREDIF on this scale is 3.0 points

TSA adjusted CI = −3.34 to −1.72 on the Hamilton Depression Scale

TSA RIS = 2274

Attrition

Timing of outcome assessment: end of treatment

328 per 1000

328 per 1000 (95% CI 56 fewer to 66 higher)

RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.20)

2225

(32 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Lowa,b

Adverse effects

Timing of outcome assessment: end of treatment

74 per 1000

6 per 1000 (95% CI 41 fewer to 65 higher)

RR 0.92 (95% CI 0.45 to 1.88)

381

(2 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Lowa,b

*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).

CI: Confidence interval; DSHI: Deliberate Self‐Harm Inventory; GAF: Global Assessment of Functioning scale; MIREDIF: Minimum relevant difference; RCTs: Randomised controlled trials; RIS: Required information size; RR: Risk Ratio; SASII: Suicide Attempt Self‐Injury Interview; SD: Standard deviation; SMD: Standardised mean difference; TAU: treatment‐as‐usual; TSA: Trial Sequential Analysis

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect
Moderate quality: further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate
Low quality: further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate
Very low quality: we are very uncertain about the estimate

aWe downgraded the quality of this evidence by one level due to risk of bias (other bias).
bWe downgraded the quality of this evidence by one level due to imprecision.
cWe downgraded the quality of this evidence by one level due to high heterogeneity.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 1. Psychotherapy versus treatment‐as‐usual
Summary of findings 2. Psychotherapy versus waiting list or no treatment

Psychotherapy versus waiting list or no treatment

Patient or population: borderline personality disorder

Settings: inpatient and outpatient

Intervention: psychotherapy

Comparison: waiting list or no treatment

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect (95% CI)

Number of participants

(RCTs)

Quality of the evidence

(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

Waiting list or no treatment

Psychotherapy

BPD symptom severity

Measured by: clinicians and self‐rated

Timing of outcome assessment: end of treatment

The mean score in the intervention groups was 0.49 SD lower (0.93 lower to 0.05 lower)

161

(3 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Lowa,b

An SMD of 0.49 represents a moderate effect.

Self‐harm

Measured by: clinicians and self‐rated

Timing of outcome assessment: end of treatment

The mean score in the intervention groups was0.17 SD lower (0.52 lower to 0.18 higher)

128

(2 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Lowa,b

An SMD of 0.17 represents a small effect.

Suicide‐related outcomes

Measured by: self‐rated

Timing of outcome assessment: end of treatment

The mean score in the intervention groups was 5.62 SD lower (16.39 lower to 5.16 higher)

108

(2 RCTs)

⊕⊝⊝⊝

Verylowa,b,c

An SMD of 5.62 represents a large effect.

Psychosocial functioning

Measured by: clinicians and self‐rated

Timing of outcome assessment: end of treatment

The mean score in the intervention groups was 0.56 SD lower (1.01 lower to 0.11 lower)

219

(5 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Lowa,b

An SMD of 0.56 represents a moderate effect.

Depression

Measured by: clinicians and self‐rated

Timing of outcome assessment: end of treatment

The mean score in the intervention groups was 1.28 SD lower (2.21 lower to 0.34 lower)

239

(6 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Lowa,b

An effect size of 1.28 represents a large effect.

Attrition

Timing of outcome assessment: end of treatment

81 per 1000

147 per 1000 (95% CI 118 fewer to 74 higher)

RR 0.55 (95% CI 0.20 to 1.50)

144

(3 RCTs)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
Verylowa,b,c

Adverse effects (not measured

See comments

See comments

No studies were found that assessed this outcome

*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).

CI: Confidence interval; RCTs: Randomised controlled trials; RR: Risk ratio; SMD: Standardized mean difference

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect
Moderate quality: further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate
Low quality: further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate
Very low quality: we are very uncertain about the estimate

aWe downgraded the quality of this evidence by one level due to risk of bias.
bWe downgraded the quality of this evidence by one level due to imprecision (there was a wide CI).
cWe downgraded the quality of this evidence by one level due to inconsistency.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 2. Psychotherapy versus waiting list or no treatment
Summary of findings 3. Dialectical behavioural therapy or mentalisation‐based therapy versus treatment‐as‐usual

Dialectical behavioural therapy or mentalisation‐based therapy versus treatment‐as‐usual

Patient or population: borderline personality disorder

Settings: inpatient and outpatient

Intervention: dialectical behavioural therapy (DBT) or mentalisation‐based therapy (MBT)

Comparison: treatment‐as‐usual (TAU)

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect (95% CI)

Number of participants

(RCTs)

Quality of the evidence

(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

TAU

DBT or MBT

DBT

BPD severity

Measured by: clinicians

Timing of outcome assessment: end of treatment

The mean score in the intervention groups was 0.60 SD lower (1.05 lower to 0.14 lower)

149

(3 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Lowa,b

An SMD of 0.60 represents a moderate effect.

Self‐harm

Measured by: clinicians

Timing of outcome assessment: end of treatment

The mean score in the intervention groups was
0.28 SD lower (0.48 lower to 0.07 lower)

376

(7 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Lowa,b

An SMD of 0.28 represents a small effect.

Psychosocial functioning

Measured by: clinicians and self‐rated

Timing of outcome assessment: end of treatment

The mean score in the intervention groups was 0.36 SD lower (0.69 lower to 0.03 lower)

225

(6 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Lowa,b,

An SMD of 0.36 represents a small effect.

MBT

Self‐harm

Measured by: clinicians

Timing of outcome assessment: end of treatment

631 per 1000

240 per 1000 (95% CI 334 fewer to 126 fewer)

RR 0.62 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.80)

252

(3 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Lowa,b

Suicide‐related outcomes

Measured by: clinicians

Timing of outcome assessment: end of treatment

298 per 1000

268 per 1000 (95% CI 286 fewer to 209 fewer)

RR 0.10 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.30)

218

(3 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Lowa,b

*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).

CI: Confidence interval; DBT: Dialectical behavioural therapy; MBT: Mentalisation‐based therapy; RCTs: Randomised controlled trials; RR: Risk ratio; SMD: Standardized mean difference; TAU: Treatment‐as‐usual

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect
Moderate quality: further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate
Low quality: further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate
Very low quality: we are very uncertain about the estimate

aWe downgraded the quality of this evidence by one level due to risk of bias.
bWe downgraded the quality of this evidence by one level due to imprecision (there was a wide CI).

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 3. Dialectical behavioural therapy or mentalisation‐based therapy versus treatment‐as‐usual
Table 1. Unused methods

Section

Protocol (Storebø 2018)

Review

Unit of analysis issues
 
 

 
 

Cross‐over trials

We would have included cross‐over trials. We planned to include data up to the point of first cross‐over (first period only; Curtin 2002). We did not intend to use data from subsequent periods due to the likelihood of carry‐over effects from the preceding treatment(s). We planned not to combine repeated participant interventions in one meta‐analysis.

We did not include any cross‐over trial. 

Cluster‐randomised trials

Had trials used cluster randomisation, we would have anticipated that investigators would have presented their results after appropriately controlling for clustering effects (robust standard errors or hierarchical linear models). If it had been unclear whether a cluster‐randomised trial had used appropriate controls for clustering, we would have contacted the investigators for further information. We would have requested and re‐analysed individual patient data using multilevel models that controlled for clustering, if appropriate controls had not been used. Following this, we would have analysed effect sizes and standard errors in RevMan 5 (Review Manager 2014), using the generic inverse method (Higgins 2011). If there had been insufficient information to control for clustering, we would have entered outcome data using individuals as the units of analysis, and then conducted a sensitivity analysis to assess the potential biasing effects of inadequately controlled cluster‐randomised trials (Donner 2002). If individual participant data had not been available, we would have looked for information on intra‐class correlation coefficients to adjust for the potential clustering effects.  

We did not include any cluster‐randomised trial.
 

Adjustment for multiplicity

We planned to adjust the P values and CIs for multiplicity due to the many secondary outcome comparisons following the method described by Jakobsen 2014.

We only adjusted the primary outcomes and one secondary outcomes for multiplicity, i.e. those outcomes presented in the SoF table.

Dealing with missing data

Had dichotomous data not been presented on the basis of ITT data, we would have added the number of participants lost in each group to the participants with unfavourable results, acting on the assumption that most people with BPD do not get lost at random.

We were unable to perform this analysis due to insufficient information

Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity

We intended to conduct subgroup analyses to make hypotheses about the subgroups mentioned below.

  1. Sex (male versus female)

  2. Comorbidity (people with comorbidity versus people without comorbidity)

  3. Treatment intensity (once a week compared to more than once a week

  4. Concurrent‐drug interventions (trials with concurrent‐drug interventions compared to those without)

We did not conduct these preplanned analyses because of lack of data.

Sensitivity analysis

We intended to assess the impact of heterogeneity on the overall pooled effect estimate by removing studies ('outliers') that contributed to heterogeneity. We intended to remove outliers one by one and assess the impact on the overall outcome.

  1. Decisions made during the review process (our assessment of the level of clinical heterogeneity)

  2. Impact of bias (studies with low and high risk of bias)

  3. Type of data collection (for example, different ways to measure depression)

  4. Imputed data (comparing analyses with available outcome data with those using an ITT approach)

We were not able to perform these analyses, due to a lack of sufficient data.

TSA

We intended to calculate post hoc, low bias, risk diversity‐adjusted required information size TSA analyses for the primary outcomes.

We were not able to perform these analyses with low risk of bias trials.

BPD: borderline personality disorder; CI: confidence interval;ITT: intention to treat; TAU: treatment‐as‐usual

Figuras y tablas -
Table 1. Unused methods
Table 2. Key demographic characteristics of the included studies

Category

Study frequency

Study ID

Sample size

Sample size above 100 participants

5

Andreoli 2016; Antonsen 2017; Linehan 2006; McMain 2009; McMurran 2016

Setting

Studies with inpatient settings

5

Jahangard 2012; Leichsenring 2016; Mohamadizadeh 2017; Schilling 2018; Stanley 2017

Studies with both inpatient and outpatient settings

7

Antonsen 2017; Bateman 1999; Davidson 2014; Gleeson 2012; Kredlow 2017b; Laurenssen 2018; Smith 2012

Gender

Only females included

17

Carter 2010; Doering 2010; Farrell 2009; Gratz 2006; Gratz 2014; Harned 2014; Koons 2001a; Linehan 1991; Linehan 1994; Linehan 2006; Linehan 2015a; Mohamadizadeh 2017; Smith 2012; Van den Bosch 2005; Weinberg 2006; Zanarini 2008; Zanarini 2018

Only males included

2

Bianchini 2019; Kamalabadi 2012

Diagnostic classification

DSM‐III diagnosis

1

Linehan 1991

DSM‐III‐R diagnosis

4

Bateman 1999; Koons 2001a; Linehan 1994; Turner 2000

DSM‐IV diagnosis

6

Borschmann 2013; McMurran 2016; Mohamadizadeh 2017; Priebe 2012; Rossouw 2012b; Schilling 2018

DSM‐IV‐TR diagnosis

54

Andreoli 2016; Antonsen 2017; Bateman 2009; Bellino 2006; Bellino 2007; Bellino 2010; Blum 2008; Bos 2010; Carter 2010; Cottraux 2009; Davidson 2006; Davidson 2014; Doering 2010; Elices 2016; Feigenbaum 2012; Feliu-Soler 2017; Giesen-Bloo 2006; Gleeson 2012; Gratz 2006; Gratz 2014; Gregory 2008b; Haeyen 2018; Harned 2014; Jahangard 2012; Jochems 2015; Jørgensen 2013; Kamalabadi 2012; Kramer 2011; Kramer 2014; Kramer 2016: Kredlow 2017a; Kredlow 2017b; Laurenssen 2018; Leppänen 2016; Lin 2019; Linehan 2006; McMain 2009; McMain 2017; Morey 2010; Morton 2012; Nadort 2009; Pascual 2015; Philips 2018; Reneses 2013; Robinson 2016; Santisteban 2015; Schilling 2018; Sinnaeve 2018; Soler 2009; Smith 2012; Van den Bosch 2005; Weinberg 2006; Zanarini 2008; Zanarini 2018

ICD‐10 diagnosis

1

Leichsenring 2016

Diagnostic assessment

BPDSI‐IV (Arntz 2003)

1

Kamalabadi 2012

CI‐BPD (Zanarini 2003b)

1

Rossouw 2012b

DIB (Gunderson 1981) or DIB‐R (Zanarini 1989)

4

Cottraux 2009; Feliu-Soler 2017; Linehan 1991; Zanarini 2008

DIB‐R (Zanarini 1989) and the BSI (Conte 1980)

1

Farrell 2009

DIB‐R (Zanarini 1989) plus any other DSM‐oriented diagnostic interview SCID‐II (First 1997)

1

Bateman 1999

DIPD‐IV (Zanarini 1987)

3

Gratz 2006; Gratz 2014; Morey 2010

IPDE (Loranger 1995)

4

Andreoli 2016; Harned 2014; McMain 2017; McMurran 2016

IPDE‐self‐rating screening and questionnaire, with the preliminary findings confirmed in clinical interviews by a psychiatrist

1

Carter 2010

Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory, 3rd Edition (MCMI‐III)

1

Jahangard 2012

PDE (Loranger 1988)

1

Turner 2000

SCID‐II (First 1997)

46

Amianto 2011; Antonsen 2017; Bateman 1999; Bateman 2009; Bellino 2006; Bellino 2007; Bellino 2010; Borschmann 2013; Bos 2010; Davidson 2006; Davidson 2014; Doering 2010; Elices 2016; Feigenbaum 2012; Giesen-Bloo 2006; Gleeson 2012; Gregory 2008b; Haeyen 2018; Jørgensen 2013; Koons 2001a; Kramer 2011; Kramer 2014; Kramer 2016; Kredlow 2017a; Kredlow 2017b; Laurenssen 2018; Leichsenring 2016; Leppänen 2016; Lin 2019; Linehan 1994; Linehan 2006; Linehan 2015a; Koons 2001a; Morton 2012; Nadort 2009; Pascual 2015; Philips 2018; Priebe 2012; Reneses 2013; Robinson 2016; Schilling 2018; Soler 2009; Smith 2012; Van den Bosch 2005; Weinberg 2006; Zanarini 2018

SIDP‐IV (Pfohl 1997)

1

Blum 2008

Exclusion criteria in included studies

Participants with substance abuse or dependence excluded

43

Amianto 2011; Andreoli 2016; Antonsen 2017; Bateman 1999; Bateman 2009; Bellino 2006; Bellino 2007; Bellino 2010; Blum 2008; Carmona í Farrés 2019; Cottraux 2009; Davidson 2006; Doering 2010; Feigenbaum 2012; Giesen-Bloo 2006; Gratz 2006; Gratz 2014; Jørgensen 2013; Kamalabadi 2012; Koons 2001a; Kramer 2011; Kredlow 2017a; Laurenssen 2018; Leichsenring 2016; Leppänen 2016; Lin 2019; Linehan 1991; Linehan 1994; McMain 2009; Mohamadizadeh 2017; Morey 2010; Nadort 2009; Pascual 2015; Rossouw 2012b; Schilling 2018; Schuppert 2012; Sinnaeve 2018; Soler 2009; Stanley 2017; Smith 2012; Weinberg 2006; Zanarini 2008; Zanarini 2018

Alcohol or substance abuse and dependence included

4

Davidson 2014; Gregory 2008b; Robinson 2016; Santisteban 2015

Antisocial features or full antisocial personality disorders excluded

9

Antonsen 2017; Carter 2010; Cottraux 2009; Doering 2010; Giesen-Bloo 2006; Jørgensen 2013; Kamalabadi 2012; Koons 2001a; Nadort 2009

Duration of interventions

Less than six months

36

Andreoli 2016; Antonsen 2017; Blum 2008; Bohus 2013; Borschmann 2013; Bos 2010; Davidson 2014; Elices 2016; Feliu-Soler 2017; Gleeson 2012; Gratz 2006; Gratz 2014; Haeyen 2018; Jahangard 2012; Kamalabadi 2012; Kramer 2011; Kramer 2014; Kramer 2016; Kredlow 2017a; Kredlow 2017b; Leichsenring 2016; Lin 2019; McMain 2017; McMurran 2016; Mehlum 2014; Mohamadizadeh 2017; Morey 2010; Morton 2012; Pascual 2015; Reneses 2013; Schilling 2018; Schuppert 2012; Soler 2009; Weinberg 2006; Zanarini 2008; Zanarini 2018

Between six months and 12 months

32

Amianto 2011; Bellino 2006; Bellino 2007; Bellino 2010; Bianchini 2019; Carmona í Farrés 2019; Carter 2010; Cottraux 2009; Davidson 2006; Doering 2010; Farrell 2009; Feigenbaum 2012; Gregory 2008b; Harned 2014; Jochems 2015; Koons 2001a; Leppänen 2016; Linehan 1991; Linehan 1994; Linehan 2006; Linehan 2015a; McMain 2009; Priebe 2012; Robinson 2016; Rossouw 2012b; Salzer 2014; Santisteban 2015; Sinnaeve 2018; Stanley 2017; Smith 2012; Turner 2000; Van den Bosch 2005

Longer than 12 months

7

Bateman 1999; Bateman 2009; Giesen-Bloo 2006; Jørgensen 2013; Laurenssen 2018; Nadort 2009; Philips 2018

Formats of interventions

Individual treatment

33

Amianto 2011; Andreoli 2016; Borschmann 2013; Bellino 2006; Bellino 2007; Bellino 2010; Cottraux 2009; Davidson 2006; Davidson 2014; Doering 2010; Giesen-Bloo 2006; Gleeson 2012; Harned 2014; Jahangard 2012; Kramer 2011; Kramer 2014; Kredlow 2017a; Kredlow 2017b; Leichsenring 2016; McMain 2009; McMurran 2016; Mohamadizadeh 2017; Morey 2010; Nadort 2009; Philips 2018; Priebe 2012; Reneses 2013; Salzer 2014; Stanley 2017; Smith 2012; Weinberg 2006; Zanarini 2008; Zanarini 2018

Group treatment

22

Antonsen 2017; Blum 2008; Bohus 2013; Bos 2010; Elices 2016; Farrell 2009; Feliu-Soler 2017; Gratz 2006; Gratz 2014; Haeyen 2018; Jochems 2015; Kamalabadi 2012; Kramer 2016; Leppänen 2016; Lin 2019; Linehan 2015a; McMain 2017; Morton 2012; Pascual 2015; Santisteban 2015; Schilling 2018; Soler 2009

Combination of individual and group treatment

16

Bateman 1999; Bateman 2009; Bianchini 2019; Carter 2010; Feigenbaum 2012; Gregory 2008b; Jørgensen 2013; Koons 2001a; Linehan 1991; Linehan 1994; Linehan 2006; Laurenssen 2018; Robinson 2016; Rossouw 2012b; Turner 2000; Van den Bosch 2005

Concomitant medication

Allowed, if needed

59

Amianto 2011; Andreoli 2016; Antonsen 2017; Bateman 1999; Bateman 2009; Blum 2008; Bohus 2013; Borschmann 2013; Bos 2010; Carmona í Farrés 2019; Cottraux 2009; Davidson 2006; Doering 2010; Elices 2016; Farrell 2009; Feigenbaum 2012; Feliu‐Soler 2017; Giesen‐Bloo 2006; Gleeson 2012; Gratz 2006; Gratz 2014; Gregory 2008b; Harned 2014; Jochems 2015; Jørgensen 2013; Koons 2001a; Kramer 2011; Kramer 2014; Kramer 2016; Kredlow 2017a; Kredlow 2017b; Laurenssen 2018; Leichsenring 2016; Linehan 1991; Linehan 1994; Linehan 2006; Linehan 2015a; McMain 2009; McMain 2017; McMurran 2016; Mehlum 2014; Morey 2010; Morton 2012; Nadort 2009; Pascual 2015; Priebe 2012; Reneses 2013; Rossouw 2012b; Salzer 2014; Schilling 2018; Schuppert 2012; Sinnaeve 2018; Smith 2012; Soler 2009; Turner 2000; Van den Bosch 2005; Weinberg 2006; Zanarini 2008; Zanarini 2018

All participants of each group received the same kind of concomitant medication

4

Bellino 2006; Bellino 2007; Bellino 2010; Jahangard 2012

Partly (50% of each group concomitantly received a specified, concurrent medication, 50% placebo)

1

Stanley 2017

Not allowed

2

Lin 2019; Mohamadizadeh 2017

Not specified

9

Bianchini 2019; Carter 2010; Davidson 2014; Haeyen 2018; Kamalabadi 2012; Leppänen 2016; Philips 2018; Robinson 2016; Santisteban 2015

Control interventions

Obligatory

42

Amianto 2011; Andreoli 2016; Bateman 1999; Bateman 2009; Bellino 2006; Bellino 2010; Bianchini 2019; Borschmann 2013; Bos 2010; Carter 2010; Davidson 2014; Doering 2010; Farrell 2009; Feigenbaum 2012; Gleeson 2012; Gratz 2006; Gratz 2014; Jahangard 2012; Jochems 2015;Jørgensen 2013; Koons 2001a; Kramer 2016; Laurenssen 2018; Leichsenring 2016; Leppänen 2016; Linehan 2006; McMurran 2016; Mehlum 2014; Morton 2012; Mohamadizadeh 2017; Philips 2018; Priebe 2012; Reneses 2013; Robinson 2016; Rossouw 2012b; Schuppert 2012; Soler 2009; Stanley 2017; Smith 2012; Van den Bosch 2005; Weinberg 2006; Zanarini 2018

Optional

13

Blum 2008; Bohus 2013; Davidson 2006; Gregory 2008b; Haeyen 2018; Kamalabadi 2012; Kredlow 2017a; Linehan 1991; Linehan 1994; McMain 2017; Mohamadizadeh 2017; Salzer 2014; Zanarini 2008

Funding

Funded by grants from universities, authorities or research foundations

62

Amianto 2011; Antonsen 2017; Bateman 1999; Bateman 2009; Blum 2008; Bohus 2013; Borschmann 2013; Bos 2010; Carmona í Farrés 2019; Cottraux 2009; Davidson 2006; Davidson 2014; Doering 2010; Elices 2016; Farrell 2009; Feigenbaum 2012; Feliu‐Soler 2017; Giesen‐Bloo 2006; Gleeson 2012; Gratz 2006; Gratz 2014; Gregory 2008b; Haeyen 2018; Harned 2014; Jochems 2015; Jørgensen 2013; Kramer 2011; Kramer 2014; Kramer 2016; Kredlow 2017a; Kredlow 2017b; Laurenssen 2018; Leichsenring 2016; Lin 2019; Linehan 1991; Linehan 1994; Linehan 2006; Linehan 2015a; McMain 2009; McMain 2017; McMurran 2016; Mehlum 2014; Morey 2010; Nadort 2009; Pascual 2015; Philips 2018; Priebe 2012; Reneses 2013; Robinson 2016; Rossouw 2012b; Salzer 2014; Santisteban 2015; Schilling 2018; Schuppert 2012; Sinnaeve 2018; Smith 2012; Soler 2009; Stanley 2017; Van den Bosch 2005; Weinberg 2006; Zanarini 2008; Zanarini 2018

No funding received

4

Bellino 2006; Bellino 2007; Bellino 2010; Jahangard 2012

Unclear funding

9

Andreoli 2016; Bianchini 2019; Carter 2010; Kamalabadi 2012; Koons 2001a; Leppänen 2016; Mohamadizadeh 2017; Morton 2012; Turner 2000

BPDSI‐IV: Borderline Personality Disorder Severity Index; BSI: Borderline Syndrome Index; CI‐BPD: Childhood Interview for DSM‐IV Borderline Personality Disorder; DIB: Diagnostic Interview for Borderline Patients; DIB‐R: Diagnostic Interview for Borderline Patients ‐ revised version; DIPD‐IV: Diagnostic Interview for DSM‐IV Personality Disorders; DSM‐III: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Third Edition; DSM‐III‐R: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Third Edition, Revised; DSM‐IV: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition; DSM‐IV‐TR: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision; ICD‐10: International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision; IPDE: International Personality Disorder Examination; PDE: Personality Disorders Examination; SCID‐II: Structured Clinical Interview for DSM DSM‐IV Axis II Personality Disorders (SCID‐II); SIDP‐IV: Structured Interview for DSM‐IV Personality

Figuras y tablas -
Table 2. Key demographic characteristics of the included studies
Comparison 1. Psychotherapy vs TAU

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1.1 Primary: BPD symptom severity (continuous) Show forest plot

23

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1.1 End of treatment

22

1244

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.52 [‐0.70, ‐0.33]

1.1.2 0‐6 months follow‐up

2

41

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.59 [‐1.23, 0.05]

1.1.3 6‐12 months follow‐up

2

157

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.04 [‐0.36, 0.27]

1.1.4 12 months and over follow‐up

2

97

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.94 [‐2.58, 0.70]

1.2 Primary: BPD symptom severity (dichotomous), at above 12 months follow‐up Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.3 Primary: self‐harm (continuous) Show forest plot

13

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.3.1 End of treatment

13

616

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.32 [‐0.49, ‐0.14]

1.3.2 0‐6 months follow‐up

1

28

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.52 [‐1.28, 0.23]

1.3.3 6‐12 months follow‐up

3

174

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.18 [‐0.48, 0.12]

1.4 Primary: self‐harm (dichotomous) Show forest plot

6

Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.4.1 End of treatment

6

513

Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.85 [0.63, 1.14]

1.4.2 0‐6 months follow‐up

1

41

Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.14 [0.04, 0.56]

1.4.3 6‐12 months follow‐up

1

41

Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.27 [0.10, 0.68]

1.4.4 12 months and over follow‐up

1

41

Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.33 [0.15, 0.76]

1.5 Primary: suicide‐related outcomes (continuous) Show forest plot

13

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.5.1 End of treatment

13

666

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.34 [‐0.57, ‐0.11]

1.5.2 0‐6 months follow‐up

2

36

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.43 [‐1.10, 0.23]

1.5.3 6‐12 months follow‐up

2

109

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.42 [‐0.80, ‐0.04]

1.5.4 Above 12 months follow‐up

1

76

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.31 [‐0.77, 0.14]

1.6 Primary: suicide‐related outcomes (dichotomous) Show forest plot

5

Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.6.1 End of treatment

5

396

Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.27 [0.11, 0.67]

1.6.2 0‐6 months follow‐up

1

41

Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.25 [0.06, 1.05]

1.6.3 Above 12 months follow‐up

1

41

Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.29 [0.11, 0.74]

1.7 Primary: psychosocial functioning (continuous) Show forest plot

23

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.7.1 End of treatment

22

1314

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.45 [‐0.68, ‐0.22]

1.7.2 0‐6 months follow‐up

1

9

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.23 [‐2.74, 0.29]

1.7.3 6‐12 months follow‐up

3

247

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.09 [‐0.40, 0.23]

1.7.4 Above 12 months follow‐up

6

499

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.27 [‐0.60, 0.05]

1.8 Secondary: anger (continuous) Show forest plot

8

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.8.1 End of treatment

8

323

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.38 [‐0.64, ‐0.12]

1.8.2 0‐6 months follow‐up

1

8

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.20 [‐2.82, 0.41]

1.8.3 6‐12 months follow‐up

2

111

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.12 [‐0.50, 0.25]

1.8.4 Above 12 months follow‐up

1

80

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.02 [‐0.42, 0.46]

1.9 Secondary: affective instability (continuous) Show forest plot

12

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.9.1 End of treatment

12

620

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.68 [‐0.98, ‐0.39]

1.9.2 6‐12 months follow‐up

1

33

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.52 [‐1.21, 0.18]

1.10 Secondary: chronic feelings of emptiness (continuous) Show forest plot

4

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.10.1 End of treatment

4

187

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.39 [‐0.69, ‐0.10]

1.10.2 6‐12 months follow‐up

1

33

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.58 [‐1.28, 0.11]

1.11 Secondary: impulsivity (continuous) Show forest plot

10

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.11.1 End of treatment

10

491

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.54 [‐0.84, ‐0.25]

1.11.2 6‐12 months follow‐up

2

77

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.32 [‐0.13, 0.77]

1.12 Secondary: impulsivity (dichotomous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.13 Secondary: interpersonal problems (continuous) Show forest plot

18

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.13.1 End of treatment

18

1159

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.42 [‐0.68, ‐0.16]

1.13.2 0‐6 months follow‐up

1

53

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.41 [‐1.01, 0.20]

1.13.3 6‐12 months follow‐up

2

132

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.17 [‐0.65, 0.32]

1.13.4 Above 12 months follow‐up

3

172

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.00 [‐0.54, 0.54]

1.14 Secondary: abandonment (continuous) Show forest plot

2

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.14.1 End of treatment

2

84

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.22 [‐0.66, 0.21]

1.14.2 6‐12 months follow‐up

1

33

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.39 [‐1.08, 0.30]

1.15 Secondary: identity disturbance (continuous) Show forest plot

4

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.15.1 End of treatment

4

250

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.37 [‐0.84, 0.10]

1.15.2 6‐12 months follow‐up

1

33

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.09 [‐1.83, ‐0.35]

1.16 Secondary: dissociation and psychotic‐like symptoms (continuous) Show forest plot

6

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.16.1 End of treatment

6

244

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.47 [‐0.85, ‐0.10]

1.16.2 0‐6 months follow‐up

2

35

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.97 [‐1.69, ‐0.26]

1.16.3 6‐12 months follow‐up

1

33

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.59 [‐1.29, 0.11]

1.16.4 12 months and over follow‐up

1

24

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.01 [‐0.81, 0.79]

1.17 Secondary: depression (continuous) Show forest plot

22

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.17.1 End of treatment

22

1568

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.39 [‐0.61, ‐0.17]

1.17.2 0‐6 months follow‐up

4

125

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.80 [‐1.26, ‐0.34]

1.17.3 6‐12 months follow‐up

3

260

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.40 [‐0.95, 0.16]

1.17.4 12 months and over follow‐up

5

311

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.40 [‐0.74, ‐0.06]

1.18 Secondary: depression (dichotomous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.19 Secondary: attrition (dichotomous) Show forest plot

33

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.19.1 End of treatment

32

2225

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.00 [0.83, 1.20]

1.19.2 0‐6 months follow‐up

1

60

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.58 [0.34, 1.00]

1.20 Secondary: non‐serious adverse effects (dichotomous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

2

381

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.92 [0.45, 1.88]

1.21 Secondary: serious adverse effects (dichotomous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

4

571

Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.86 [0.14, 5.09]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Psychotherapy vs TAU
Comparison 2. Acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) vs TAU

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

2.1 Primary: BPD symptom severity (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.2 Secondary: affective instability (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.3 Secondary: depression (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.4 Secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 2. Acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) vs TAU
Comparison 3. Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) vs TAU

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

3.1 Primary: BPD symptom severity (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

3

149

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.60 [‐1.05, ‐0.14]

3.2 Primary, self‐harm (continuous) Show forest plot

7

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3.2.1 End of treatment

7

376

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.28 [‐0.48, ‐0.07]

3.2.2 6‐12 months follow‐up

2

141

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.26 [‐0.59, 0.07]

3.3 Primary: suicide‐related outcomes (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

5

231

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.23 [‐0.68, 0.23]

3.4 Primary: suicide‐related outcomes, attempts (dichotomous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3.5 Primary: psychosocial functioning (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

6

225

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.36 [‐0.69, ‐0.03]

3.6 Secondary: anger (continuous) Show forest plot

5

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3.6.1 End of treatment

5

230

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.47 [‐0.86, ‐0.09]

3.6.2 6‐12 months follow‐up

1

78

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.17 [‐0.62, 0.27]

3.6.3 Above 12 months follow‐up

1

80

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.02 [‐0.42, 0.46]

3.7 Secondary: affective instability (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

2

80

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.57 [‐1.64, 0.51]

3.8 Secondary: chronic feelings of emptiness (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3.9 Secondary: impulsivity (continuous) Show forest plot

3

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3.9.1 End of treatment

3

128

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.35 [‐0.71, ‐0.00]

3.9.2 6‐12 months follow‐up

1

44

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.30 [‐0.30, 0.90]

3.10 Secondary: interpersonal problems (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

3

148

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.12 [‐0.45, 0.20]

3.11 Secondary: dissociation and psychotic‐like symptoms (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

4

194

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.45 [‐0.73, ‐0.16]

3.12 Secondary: depression (continuous) Show forest plot

5

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3.12.1 End of treatment

5

219

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.47 [‐0.98, 0.03]

3.12.2 6‐12 months follow‐up

1

81

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.23 [‐0.67, 0.21]

3.13 Secondary: attrition (dichotomous) Show forest plot

11

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3.13.1 End of treatment

10

591

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.27 [0.70, 2.31]

3.13.2 0‐6 months follow‐up

1

60

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.58 [0.34, 1.00]

3.14 Secondary: adverse effects (dichotomous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3.15 Secondary: serious adverse effects (dichotomous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 3. Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) vs TAU
Comparison 4. Mentalisation based therapy (MBT) vs TAU

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

4.1 Primary: BPD symptom severity (continuous) Show forest plot

6

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

4.1.1 End of treatment

5

267

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.13 [‐0.38, 0.11]

4.1.2 0‐6 months follow‐up

1

15

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.40 [‐1.49, 0.68]

4.1.3 Above 12 months follow‐up

2

97

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.94 [‐2.58, 0.70]

4.2 Primary: self‐harm (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

4.3 Primary: self‐harm (dichotomous) Show forest plot

3

Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

4.3.1 End of treatment

3

252

Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.62 [0.49, 0.80]

4.3.2 0‐6 months follow‐up

1

41

Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.14 [0.04, 0.56]

4.3.3 6‐12 months follow‐up

1

41

Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.27 [0.10, 0.68]

4.3.4 Above 12 months follow‐up

1

41

Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.33 [0.15, 0.76]

4.4 Primary: suicide‐related outcomes (dichotomous) Show forest plot

3

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

4.4.1 End of treatment

3

218

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.10 [0.04, 0.30]

4.4.2 0‐6 months follow‐up

1

41

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.25 [0.06, 1.05]

4.4.3 Above 12 months follow‐up

1

41

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.29 [0.11, 0.74]

4.5 Primary: psychosocial functioning (continuous) Show forest plot

3

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

4.5.1 End of treatment

3

239

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.54 [‐1.24, 0.16]

4.5.2 Above 12 months follow‐up

2

104

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.41 [‐0.97, 0.15]

4.6 Secondary: interpersonal problems (continuous) Show forest plot

5

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

4.6.1 End of treatment

5

357

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.68 [‐1.33, ‐0.02]

4.6.2 0‐6 months follow‐up

1

53

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.41 [‐1.01, 0.20]

4.6.3 Above 12 months follow‐up

2

96

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.28 [‐0.71, 0.14]

4.7 Secondary: depression (continuous) Show forest plot

4

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

4.7.1 End of treatment

4

333

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.58 [‐1.22, 0.05]

4.7.2 0‐6 months follow‐up

2

91

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.81 [‐1.69, 0.07]

4.7.3 6‐12 months follow‐up

1

37

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.17 [‐1.88, ‐0.45]

4.7.4 Above 12 months follow‐up

2

90

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.72 [‐1.55, 0.10]

4.8 Secondary: depression (dichotomous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

4.9 Secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

7

552

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.99 [0.79, 1.25]

4.10 Secondary: adverse effects (dichotomous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

4.11 Mentalisation‐based treatment for eating disorders (MBT‐ED) versus specialist supportive clinical management (SSCM‐ED) (generic inverse variance) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

4.11.1 Primary: psychosocial functioning (continuous), at end of treatment

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.07 [‐0.86, 0.72]

4.11.2 Primary: psychosocial functioning (dichotomous), at 0‐6 months follow‐up

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.44 [‐1.52, 0.64]

4.11.3 Secondary: interpersonal problems (continuous), at end of treatment

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.10 [‐0.89, 0.69]

4.11.4 Secondary: interpersonal problems (continuous), at 0‐6 months follow‐up

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.06 [‐1.15, 1.03]

4.11.5 Secondary: depression (continuous), at end of treatment

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.19 [‐0.60, 0.98]

4.11.6 Secondary: depression (continuous), at 0‐6 months follow‐up

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.51 [‐0.62, 1.64]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 4. Mentalisation based therapy (MBT) vs TAU
Comparison 5. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and related treatments vs TAU

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

5.1 Primary: BPD symptom severity (continuous) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

5.1.1 End of treatment

1

26

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐3.08 [‐4.99, ‐1.17]

5.1.2 0‐6 months follow‐up

1

26

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐2.02 [‐4.23, 0.19]

5.2 Primary: BPD symptom severity (dichotomous), at above 12 months follow‐up Show forest plot

1

76

Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.91 [0.56, 1.48]

5.3 Primary: self‐harm (continuous) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

5.3.1 End of treatment

1

28

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐3.03 [‐5.68, ‐0.38]

5.3.2 0‐6 months follow‐up

1

28

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐4.71 [‐11.60, 2.18]

5.4 Primary: self‐harm (dichotomous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

5.5 Primary: suicide‐related outcomes (continuous) Show forest plot

2

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

5.5.1 End of treatment

2

104

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.47 [‐1.02, 0.08]

5.5.2 0‐6 months follow‐up

1

28

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.45 [‐1.20, 0.31]

5.5.3 6‐12 months follow‐up

1

76

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.44 [‐0.89, 0.02]

5.5.4 Above 12 months follow‐up

1

76

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.31 [‐0.77, 0.14]

5.6 Primary: psychosocial functioning (continuous) Show forest plot

2

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

5.6.1 End of treatment

1

99

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.00 [‐0.39, 0.39]

5.6.2 6‐12 months follow‐up

1

90

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.13 [‐0.28, 0.55]

5.6.3 Above 12 months follow‐up

2

209

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.04 [‐0.36, 0.43]

5.7 Secondary: interpersonal problems (continuous) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

5.7.1 End of treatment

1

99

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

5.40 [‐3.70, 14.50]

5.7.2 6‐12 months follow‐up

1

99

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.30 [‐9.17, 9.77]

5.7.3 Above 12 months follow‐up

1

76

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

11.70 [0.72, 22.68]

5.8 Secondary: dissociation and psychotic‐like symptoms (continuous) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

5.8.1 End of treatment

1

26

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐2.30 [‐8.84, 4.24]

5.8.2 0‐6 months follow‐up

1

26

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐13.40 [‐24.49, ‐2.31]

5.9 Secondary: depression (continuous) Show forest plot

5

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

5.9.1 End of treatment

5

314

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.21 [‐0.77, 0.35]

5.9.2 0‐6 months follow‐up

1

26

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.96 [‐1.78, ‐0.14]

5.9.3 6‐12 months follow‐up

1

99

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.29 [‐0.69, 0.11]

5.9.4 Above 12 months follow‐up

2

197

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.15 [‐0.43, 0.13]

5.10 Secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

5.11 Secondary: adverse effects (dichotomous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

5.11.1 Non‐serious adverse effects

1

306

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.92 [0.45, 1.88]

5.11.2 Serious adverse effects

2

326

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

2.65 [0.31, 22.93]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 5. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and related treatments vs TAU
Comparison 6. Psychodynamic psychotherapy vs TAU

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

6.1 Primary: BPD symptom severity (continuous) Show forest plot

4

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

6.1.1 End of treatment

4

222

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.29 [‐0.66, 0.09]

6.1.2 6‐12 months follow‐up

1

33

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.31 [‐1.00, 0.38]

6.2 Primary: self‐harm (continuous) Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

6.2.1 End of treatment

1

33

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.12 [‐0.56, 0.80]

6.2.2 6‐12 months follow‐up

1

33

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.14 [‐0.55, 0.82]

6.3 Primary: suicide‐related outcomes (continuous) Show forest plot

3

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

6.3.1 End of treatment

3

101

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.22 [‐0.62, 0.17]

6.3.2 6‐12 months follow‐up

1

33

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.38 [‐1.07, 0.31]

6.4 Primary: psychosocial functioning (continuous) Show forest plot

4

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

6.4.1 End of treatment

4

140

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.69 [‐1.98, 0.59]

6.4.2 6‐12 months follow‐up

1

33

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.05 [‐0.64, 0.73]

6.4.3 Above 12 months follow‐up

1

16

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.40 [‐1.39, 0.60]

6.5 Secondary: anger (continuous) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

6.5.1 End of treatment

1

33

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.00 [‐0.86, 0.86]

6.5.2 6‐12 months follow‐up

1

33

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.00 [‐0.89, 0.89]

6.6 Secondary: affective instability (continuous) Show forest plot

3

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

6.6.1 End of treatment

3

116

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.50 [‐0.87, ‐0.13]

6.6.2 6‐12 months follow‐up

1

33

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.52 [‐1.21, 0.18]

6.7 Secondary: chronic feelings of emptiness (continuous) Show forest plot

2

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

6.7.1 End of treatment

2

77

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.49 [‐1.02, 0.04]

6.7.2 6‐12 months follow‐up

1

33

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.58 [‐1.28, 0.11]

6.8 Secondary: impulsivity (continuous) Show forest plot

2

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

6.8.1 End of treatment

2

77

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.39 [‐0.85, 0.07]

6.8.2 6‐12 months follow‐up

1

33

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.35 [‐0.34, 1.04]

6.9 Secondary: interpersonal problems (continuous) Show forest plot

4

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

6.9.1 End of treatment

4

238

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.21 [‐0.71, 0.29]

6.9.2 6‐12 months follow‐up

1

33

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.51 [‐1.20, 0.19]

6.10 Secondary: abandonment (continuous) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

6.10.1 End of treatment

1

33

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.20 [‐0.95, 0.55]

6.10.2 6‐12 months follow‐up

1

33

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.40 [‐1.08, 0.28]

6.11 Secondary: identity disturbance (continuous) Show forest plot

3

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

6.11.1 End of treatment

3

199

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.38 [‐1.02, 0.27]

6.11.2 6‐12 months follow‐up

1

33

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.09 [‐1.83, ‐0.35]

6.12 Secondary: dissociation and psychotic‐like symptoms (continuous) Show forest plot

2

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

6.12.1 End of treatment

2

57

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.18 [‐0.96, 0.60]

6.12.2 6‐12 months follow‐up

1

33

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.59 [‐1.29, 0.11]

6.12.3 Above 12 months follow‐up

1

24

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.01 [‐0.81, 0.79]

6.13 Secondary: depression (continuous) Show forest plot

3

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

6.13.1 End of treatment

3

190

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.17 [‐0.81, 0.47]

6.13.2 Above 12 months follow‐up

1

24

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.68 [‐1.51, 0.15]

6.14 Secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

3

210

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.90 [0.56, 1.47]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 6. Psychodynamic psychotherapy vs TAU
Comparison 7. Schema‐focused therapy (SFT) vs TAU

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

7.1 Primary: BPD symptom severity (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

7.2 Primary: psychosocial functioning (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

7.3 Secondary: affective instability (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

7.4 Secondary: impulsivity (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

7.5 Secondary: interpersonal problems (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

7.6 Secondary: dissociation and psychotic‐like symptoms (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

7.7 Secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 7. Schema‐focused therapy (SFT) vs TAU
Comparison 8. Systems training for emotional predictability and problem solving (STEPPS) vs TAU

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

8.1 Primary: BPD symptom severity (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

3

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

8.1.1 End of treatment

3

273

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.39 [‐0.63, ‐0.15]

8.1.2 6‐12 months follow‐up

1

124

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.03 [‐0.33, 0.38]

8.2 Primary: self‐harm (dichtomous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

8.3 Primary: psychosocial functioning (continuous) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

8.3.1 End of treatment

1

124

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐7.00 [‐11.43, ‐2.57]

8.3.2 6‐12 months follow‐up

1

124

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐5.90 [‐12.49, 0.69]

8.4 Secondary: affective instability (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

2

221

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.25 [‐0.52, 0.02]

8.5 Secondary: impulsivity (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

8.6 Secondary: impulsivity (dichotomous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

8.7 Secondary: interpersonal problems (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

2

177

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.38 [‐0.67, ‐0.08]

8.8 Secondary: dissociation and psychotic‐like symptoms (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

8.9 Secondary: depression (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

8.9.1 End of treatment

1

124

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐3.80 [‐9.34, 1.74]

8.9.2 6‐12 months follow‐up

1

124

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.60 [‐8.42, 9.62]

8.10 Secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 8. Systems training for emotional predictability and problem solving (STEPPS) vs TAU
Comparison 9. Cognitive analytic therapy (CAT) vs TAU

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

9.1 Primary: suicide‐related outcomes (continuous) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

9.1.1 End of treatment

1

9

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.40 [‐4.21, 1.41]

9.1.2 0‐6 months follow‐up

1

8

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.50 [‐2.05, 1.05]

9.2 Primary: psychosocial functioning (continuous) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

9.2.1 End of treatment

1

9

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐16.40 [‐31.20, ‐1.60]

9.2.2 0‐6 months follow‐up

1

9

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐15.80 [‐29.36, ‐2.24]

9.3 Secondary: anger (continuous) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

9.3.1 End of treatment

1

9

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.90 [‐7.97, 4.17]

9.3.2 0‐6 months follow‐up

1

8

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐4.50 [‐9.01, 0.01]

9.4 Secondary: dissociation and psychotic‐like symptoms (continuous) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

9.4.1 End of treatment

1

9

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐6.10 [‐15.01, 2.81]

9.4.2 0‐6 months follow‐up

1

9

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐11.70 [‐24.02, 0.62]

9.5 Secondary: depression (continuous) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

9.5.1 End of treatment

1

9

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐9.70 [‐20.10, 0.70]

9.5.2 0‐6 months follow‐up

1

8

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐3.70 [‐11.99, 4.59]

9.6 Secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 9. Cognitive analytic therapy (CAT) vs TAU
Comparison 10. Motivation feedback (MF) vs TAU

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

10.1 Primary: psychosocial functioning, at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 10. Motivation feedback (MF) vs TAU
Comparison 11. Psychoeducation vs TAU

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

11.1 Secondary: depression (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

11.2 Secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 11. Psychoeducation vs TAU
Comparison 12. Transference‐focused psychotherapy (TFP) vs TAU

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

12.1 Primary: BPD symptom severity (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

12.2 Primary: self‐harm (dichotomous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

12.3 Primary: suicide‐related outcomes (dichotomous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

12.4 Primary: psychosocial functioning (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

12.5 Secondary: depression (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

12.6 Secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 12. Transference‐focused psychotherapy (TFP) vs TAU
Comparison 13. Once‐only interventions (individual setting) vs TAU

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

13.1 Primary: self‐harm (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

13.2 Primary: psychosocial functioning (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

13.3 Secondary: depression (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

13.4 Secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 13. Once‐only interventions (individual setting) vs TAU
Comparison 14. Eclectic treatments vs TAU

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

14.1 Primary: BPD symptom severity (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

3

134

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.90 [‐1.57, ‐0.23]

14.2 Primary: self‐harm (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

2

83

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.84 [‐1.29, ‐0.39]

14.3 Primary: suicide‐related outcomes (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

2

221

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.55 [‐1.29, 0.19]

14.4 Primary: psychosocial functioning (continuous) Show forest plot

2

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

14.4.1 End of treatment

2

231

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.57 [‐1.10, ‐0.04]

14.4.2 Above 12 months follow‐up

1

170

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.64 [‐1.04, ‐0.24]

14.5 Secondary: anger (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

14.6 Secondary: affective instability (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

3

134

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.95 [‐1.74, ‐0.15]

14.7 Secondary: chronic feelings of emptiness (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

14.8 Secondary: impulsivity (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

3

134

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.76 [‐1.30, ‐0.22]

14.9 Secondary: interpersonal problems (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

2

112

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.62 [‐1.09, ‐0.15]

14.10 Secondary: abandonment (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

14.11 Secondary: identity disturbance (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

14.12 Secondary: depression (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

4

304

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.82 [‐1.38, ‐0.26]

14.13 Secondary: attrition (dichotomuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

4

326

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.06 [0.85, 1.32]

14.14 Secondary: adverse effects (dichotomous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 14. Eclectic treatments vs TAU
Comparison 15. Psychotherapy vs waiting list or no treatment

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

15.1 Primary: BPD symptom severity (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

3

161

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.49 [‐0.93, ‐0.05]

15.2 Primary: self‐harm (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

2

128

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.17 [‐0.52, 0.18]

15.3 Primary: suicide‐related outcomes (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

2

108

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐5.62 [‐16.39, 5.16]

15.4 Primary: psychosocial functioning (continuous) Show forest plot

5

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

15.4.1 End of treatment

5

219

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.56 [‐1.01, ‐0.11]

15.4.2 0‐6 months follow‐up

1

30

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.89 [‐1.65, ‐0.13]

15.4.3 6‐12 months follow‐up

1

30

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.04 [‐1.81, ‐0.27]

15.4.4 Above 12 months follow‐up

1

28

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.38 [‐1.14, 0.37]

15.5 Secondary: anger (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

2

128

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.58 [‐1.70, 0.55]

15.6 Secondary: affective instability (continuous) Show forest plot

2

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

15.6.1 End of treatment

2

128

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.99 [‐1.36, ‐0.62]

15.6.2 0‐6 months follow‐up

1

30

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.47 [‐1.20, 0.26]

15.6.3 6‐12 months follow‐up

1

30

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.38 [‐1.10, 0.34]

15.6.4 Above 12 months follow‐up

1

30

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.28 [‐1.01, 0.44]

15.7 Secondary: chronic feelings of emptiness (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

15.8 Secondary: impulsivity (continuous) Show forest plot

3

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

15.8.1 End of treatment

3

178

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.52 [‐0.82, ‐0.22]

15.8.2 0‐6 months follow‐up

1

30

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.90 [‐1.66, ‐0.14]

15.8.3 6‐12 months follow‐up

1

30

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.79 [‐1.54, ‐0.04]

15.8.4 Above 12 months follow‐up

1

30

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.75 [‐1.50, ‐0.01]

15.9 Secondary: interpersonal problems (continuous) Show forest plot

3

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

15.9.1 End of treatment

3

120

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.85 [‐1.23, ‐0.47]

15.9.2 0‐6 months follow‐up

1

30

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.40 [‐2.21, ‐0.59]

15.9.3 6‐12 months follow‐up

1

30

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.90 [‐1.66, ‐0.14]

15.9.4 Above 12 months follow‐up

1

30

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.86 [‐1.62, ‐0.11]

15.10 Secondary: abandonment (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

15.11 Secondary: identity disturbance (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

15.12 Secondary: dissociation and psychotic‐like symptoms (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

2

77

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.13 [‐0.65, 0.39]

15.13 Secondary: depression (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

6

239

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.28 [‐2.21, ‐0.34]

15.14 Secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

3

144

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.55 [0.20, 1.50]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 15. Psychotherapy vs waiting list or no treatment
Comparison 16. Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) vs waiting list or no treatment

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

16.1 Primary: BPD symptom severity (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

2

117

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.71 [‐1.08, ‐0.33]

16.2 Primary: self‐harm (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

16.3 Primary: suicide‐related outcomes (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

2

108

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐5.62 [‐16.39, 5.16]

16.4 Primary: psychosocial functioning (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

2

117

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.73 [‐1.11, ‐0.36]

16.5 Secondary: anger (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

16.6 Secondary: affective instability (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

16.7 Secondary: impulsivity (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

16.8 Secondary: dissociation and psychotic‐like symptoms (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

16.9 Secondary: depression (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

3

141

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐3.20 [‐5.57, ‐0.83]

16.10 DBT‐couple therapy (CDBT) vs waiting list (generic inverse variance) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

16.10.1 Primary: BPD severity (continuous), at end of treatment

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐27.15 [‐31.59, ‐22.71]

16.10.2 Primary: suicide‐related outcomes (continuous), at end of treatment

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.94 [‐1.24, ‐0.64]

16.10.3 Primary: psychosocial functioning (continuous), at end of treatment

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐10.70 [‐12.31, ‐9.09]

16.10.4 Secondary: anger (continuous), at end of treatment

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.42 [‐1.72, ‐1.12]

16.10.5 Secondary: affective instability (continuous), at end of treatment

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐4.01 [‐5.44, ‐2.58]

16.10.6 Secondary: chronic feelings of emptiness (continuous), at end of treatment

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐3.54 [‐4.81, ‐2.27]

16.10.7 Secondary: impulsivity (continuous), at end of treatment

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.51 [‐0.72, ‐0.30]

16.10.8 Secondary: interpersonal problems (continuous), at end of treatment

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.98 [‐2.47, ‐1.49]

16.10.9 Secondary: abandonment (continuous), at end of treatment

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.86 [‐1.09, ‐0.63]

16.10.10 Secondary: identity disturbance (continuous), at end of treatment

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐2.44 [‐2.77, ‐2.11]

16.10.11 Secondary: dissociation or psychotic‐like symptoms (continuous), at end of treatment

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.92 [‐2.46, ‐1.38]

16.10.12 Secondary: depression (continuous), at end of treatment

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐10.43 [‐11.86, ‐9.00]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 16. Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) vs waiting list or no treatment
Comparison 17. Schema‐focused therapy (SFT) vs no treatment

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

17.1 Primary: suicide‐related outcomes (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

17.2 Secondary: depression (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 17. Schema‐focused therapy (SFT) vs no treatment
Comparison 18. Interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) vs waiting list

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

18.1 Primary: BPD symptom severity (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

18.2 Primary: self‐harm (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

18.3 Primary: psychosocial functioning (continuous) Show forest plot

2

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

18.3.1 End of treatment

2

76

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.03 [‐0.48, 0.42]

18.3.2 0‐6 months follow‐up

1

30

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.89 [‐1.65, ‐0.13]

18.3.3 6‐12 months follow‐up

1

30

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.04 [‐1.81, ‐0.27]

18.3.4 Above 12 months follow‐up

1

28

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.38 [‐1.14, 0.37]

18.4 Secondary: anger (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

18.5 Secondary: affective instability (continuous) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

18.5.1 End of treatment

1

44

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.02 [‐1.66, ‐0.38]

18.5.2 0‐6 months follow‐up

1

30

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.46 [‐1.15, 0.23]

18.5.3 6‐12 months follow‐up

1

30

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.39 [‐1.12, 0.34]

18.5.4 Above 12 months follow‐up

1

30

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.34 [‐1.17, 0.49]

18.6 Secondary: chronic feelings of emptiness (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

18.7 Secondary: impulsivity (continuous) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

18.7.1 End of treatment

1

44

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.03 [‐1.69, ‐0.37]

18.7.2 0‐6 months follow‐up

1

30

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.10 [‐1.95, ‐0.25]

18.7.3 6‐12 months follow‐up

1

30

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.10 [‐2.06, ‐0.14]

18.7.4 Above 12 months follow‐up

1

30

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.09 [‐2.09, ‐0.09]

18.8 Secondary: interpersonal problems (continuous) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

18.8.1 End of treatment

1

44

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.14 [‐1.94, ‐0.34]

18.8.2 0‐6 months follow‐up

1

30

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐2.00 [‐2.98, ‐1.02]

18.8.3 6‐12 months follow‐up

1

30

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.56 [‐2.74, ‐0.38]

18.8.4 Above 12 months follow‐up

1

30

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.48 [‐2.63, ‐0.33]

18.9 Secondary: abandonment (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

18.10 Secondary: identity disturbance (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

18.11 Secondary: dissociation and psychotic‐like symptoms (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

18.12 Secondary outcome: depression (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

3

98

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.52 [‐1.11, 0.06]

18.13 Secondary outcome: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

2

94

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.55 [0.20, 1.50]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 18. Interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) vs waiting list
Comparison 19. Once‐only interventions (individual setting) vs waiting list

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

19.1 Secondary: impulsivity (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

19.2 Secondary: interpersonal problems (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

19.3 Secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 19. Once‐only interventions (individual setting) vs waiting list
Comparison 20. Eclectic treatments vs waiting list

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

20.1 Primary outcome: psychosocial functioning (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

20.2 Secondary outcome: interpersonal problems (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 20. Eclectic treatments vs waiting list
Comparison 21. Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) and related treatments vs active treatment

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

21.1 Standard DBT (DBT) vs client‐centred therapy (CCT) (continuous) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

21.1.1 Primary: self‐harm (continuous), at end of treatment

1

24

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐2.75 [‐4.42, ‐1.08]

21.1.2 Primary: suicide‐related outcomes (continuous), at end of treatment

1

24

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐7.75 [‐14.66, ‐0.84]

21.1.3 Secondary: anger (continuous), at end of treatment

1

24

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.00 [‐1.98, ‐0.02]

21.1.4 Secondary: impulsivity (continuous), at end of treatment

1

24

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.50 [‐2.60, ‐0.40]

21.1.5 Secondary: dissociation and psychotic‐like symptoms (continuous), at end of treatment

1

24

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐7.16 [‐12.15, ‐2.17]

21.1.6 Secondary: depression (continuous), at end of treatment

1

24

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐9.16 [‐14.79, ‐3.53]

21.2 DBT vs CCT, secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

21.3 Standard DBT (DBT) vs good psychiatric management (GPM) (continuous) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

21.3.1 Primary: BPD severity (continuous), at end of treatment

1

180

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.23 [‐1.97, 1.51]

21.3.2 Primary: self‐harm (continuous), at end of treatment

1

180

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐8.58 [‐19.38, 2.22]

21.3.3 Secondary: anger (continuous), at end of treatment

1

180

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.15 [‐1.65, 1.35]

21.3.4 Secondary: interpersonal problems (continuous), at end of treatment

1

180

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.34 [‐15.36, 12.68]

21.3.5 Secondary: depression (continuous), at end of treatment

1

180

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐2.65 [‐7.18, 1.88]

21.4 DBT vs GPM, secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

21.5 Standard DBT (DBT) vs individual DBT therapy + activities group (DBT‐I) (continuous) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

21.5.1 Primary: self‐harm (continuous), at end of treatment

1

66

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐10.40 [‐22.99, 2.19]

21.5.2 Primary: self‐harm (continuous), at 6‐12 months follow‐up

1

66

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐8.10 [‐19.59, 3.39]

21.5.3 Primary: suicide‐related outcomes (continuous), at end of treatment

1

66

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.50 [‐1.37, 2.37]

21.5.4 Primary: suicide‐related outcomes (continuous), at 6‐12 months follow‐up

1

66

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.60 [‐2.79, ‐0.41]

21.5.5 Secondary: depression (continuous), at end of treatment

1

66

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐5.90 [‐9.74, ‐2.06]

21.5.6 Secondary: depression (continuous), at 6‐12 months follow‐up

1

66

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.30 [‐3.10, 5.70]

21.6 DBT vs DBT‐I, secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

21.7 Standard DBT (DBT) vs skills training group + individual case management (DBT‐S) (continuous) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

21.7.1 Primary: self‐harm (continuous), at end of treatment

1

66

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.30 [‐8.42, 9.02]

21.7.2 Primary: self‐harm (continuous), at 6‐12 months follow‐up

1

66

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.50 [‐9.04, 6.04]

21.7.3 Primary: suicide‐related outcomes (continuous), at end of treatment

1

66

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.80 [‐1.06, 2.66]

21.7.4 Primary: suicide‐related outcomes (continuous), at 6‐12 months follow‐up

1

66

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.50 [‐0.02, 1.02]

21.7.5 Secondary: depression (continuous), at end of treatment

1

66

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.90 [‐1.60, 5.40]

21.7.6 Secondary: depression (continuous), at 6‐12 months follow‐up

1

66

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.30 [‐0.90, 7.50]

21.8 DBT vs DBT‐S, secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at 6‐12 months follow‐up Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

21.9 Standard DBT (DBT) vs step‐down DBT (DBT‐SD) (continuous) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

21.9.1 Primary: BPD symptom severity (continuous), at end of treatment

1

38

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐2.83 [‐11.21, 5.55]

21.9.2 Primary: self‐harm (continuous), at end of treatment

1

38

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

4.10 [‐4.07, 12.27]

21.9.3 Primary: suicide‐related outcomes (continuous), at end of treatment

1

38

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.30 [‐0.73, 1.33]

21.9.4 Secondary: anger (continuous), at end of treatment

1

41

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.53 [‐1.48, 0.43]

21.9.5 Secondary: affective instability (continuous), at end of treatment

1

41

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.71 [‐2.51, 1.09]

21.9.6 Secondary: chronic feeling of emptiness (continuous), at end of treatment

1

41

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.18 [‐1.68, 2.04]

21.9.7 Secondary: impulsivity (continuous), at end of treatment

1

41

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.24 [‐0.26, 0.75]

21.9.8 Secondary: interpersonal problems (continuous), at end of treatment

1

41

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.31 [‐2.05, ‐0.57]

21.9.9 Secondary: abandonment (continuous), at end of treatment

1

41

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.11 [‐2.14, ‐0.08]

21.9.10 Secondary: dissociation and psychotic‐like symptoms (continuous), at end of treatment

1

41

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.44 [‐1.56, 0.68]

21.10 DBT vs DBT‐SD, secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

84

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.37 [0.17, 0.78]

21.11 Standard DBT (DBT) vs DBT Prolonged Exposure (PE) (continuous) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

21.11.1 Primary: self‐harm (continuous), end of treatment

1

18

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.10 [‐1.86, 2.06]

21.11.2 Primary: self‐harm (continuous), at 0‐6 months follow‐up

1

18

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.30 [‐1.09, 0.49]

21.11.3 Primary: suicide‐related outcomes (continuous), end of treatment

1

18

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Not estimable

21.11.4 Primary: suicide‐related outcomes (continuous), at 0‐6 months follow‐up

1

18

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Not estimable

21.11.5 Primary: psychosocial functioning (continuous), end of treatment

1

18

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

5.27 [‐2.06, 12.60]

21.11.6 Primary: psychosocial functioning (continuous), at 0‐6 months follow‐up

1

18

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.00 [‐6.27, 10.27]

21.11.7 Secondary: interpersonal problems (continuous), end of treatment

1

18

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.14 [‐0.42, 0.70]

21.11.8 Secondary: interpersonal problems (continuous), at 0‐6 months follow‐up

1

18

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.19 [‐0.48, 0.86]

21.11.9 Secondary: dissociation or psychotic‐like symptoms (continuous), end of treatment

1

18

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

4.60 [‐9.24, 18.44]

21.11.10 Secondary: dissociation or psychotic‐like symptoms (continuous), at 0‐6 months follow‐up

1

18

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

6.00 [‐9.46, 21.46]

21.11.11 Secondary: depression (continuous), end of treatment

1

18

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.70 [‐3.19, 10.59]

21.11.12 Secondary: depression (continuous), at 0‐6 months follow‐up

1

18

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

4.30 [‐1.08, 9.68]

21.12 DBT vs DBT‐PE, secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at 0‐6 months follow‐up Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

21.13 DBT skills group + case management (DBT‐S) vs DBT individual therapy + activity group (DBT‐I) (continuous) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

21.13.1 Primary: self‐harm (continuous), at end of treatment

1

66

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐10.70 [‐22.47, 1.07]

21.13.2 Primary: self‐harming behaviour (continuous), at 6‐12 months follow‐up

1

66

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐6.60 [‐19.72, 6.52]

21.13.3 Primary: suicide‐related outcomes (continuous), at end of treatment

1

66

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.30 [‐1.72, 1.12]

21.13.4 Primary: suicide‐related outcomes (continuous), at 6‐12 months follow‐up

1

66

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐2.10 [‐3.21, ‐0.99]

21.13.5 Secondary: depression (continuous), at end of treatment

1

66

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐7.80 [‐11.27, ‐4.33]

21.13.6 Secondary: depression (continuous), at 6‐12 months follow‐up

1

66

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐2.00 [‐6.44, 2.44]

21.14 DBT‐S vs DBT‐I, secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at 6‐12 months follow‐up Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

21.15 DBT skills group (DBT‐S) vs cognitive therapy group (CT‐G) (continuous) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

21.15.1 Primary: BPD symptom severity (continuous), at end of treatment

1

82

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.26 [‐0.13, 0.65]

21.15.2 Primary: BPD symptom severity (continuous), at 0‐6 months follow‐up

1

82

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.96 [‐1.15, ‐0.77]

21.15.3 Primary: suicide‐related outcomes (continuous), at end of treatment

1

82

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.46 [‐2.47, 3.39]

21.15.4 Primary: suicide‐related outcomes (continuous), at 0‐6 months follow‐up

1

82

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐2.69 [‐4.89, ‐0.49]

21.15.5 Secondary: depression (continuous), at end of treatment

1

82

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐2.12 [‐5.25, 1.01]

21.15.6 Secondary: depression (continuous), at 0‐6 months follow‐up

1

82

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.60 [‐5.07, 1.87]

21.16 DBT‐S vs CT‐G, secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

21.17 DBT skills group (DBT‐S) vs schema‐focused therapy group (SFT‐G) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

21.17.1 Primary: suicide‐related outcomes (continuous), at end of treatment

1

24

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.92 [‐0.36, 2.20]

21.17.2 Secondary: depression (continuous), at end of treatment

1

24

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

4.33 [2.57, 6.09]

21.18 DBT mindfulness group (DBT‐M) vs DBT interpersonal effectiveness group (DBT‐IE) (continuous) Show forest plot

2

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

21.18.1 Primary: BPD symptom severity (continuous), at end of treatment

2

113

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.45 [‐1.47, 0.58]

21.18.2 Secondary: impulsivity (continuous), at end of treatment

2

91

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.36 [‐0.77, 0.06]

21.19 DBT‐M vs DBT‐IE, secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

2

134

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.86 [1.07, 3.23]

21.20 DBT mindfulness group (DBT‐M) vs loving‐kindness and compassion meditation (LK/CM), primary: BPD symptom severity (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 21. Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) and related treatments vs active treatment
Comparison 22. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and related treatments vs active treatment

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

22.1 CBT vs trauma‐ and anxiety‐related group psychoeducation (continuous) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

22.1.1 Primary: BPD symptom severity (continuous), at end of treatment

1

50

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.26 [‐1.46, 0.94]

22.1.2 Primary: BPD symptom severity (continuous), at 0‐6 months follow‐up

1

50

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.39 [‐1.60, 0.82]

22.1.3 Primary: BPD symptom severity (continuous), at 6‐12 months follow‐up

1

50

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.57 [‐0.48, 1.62]

22.1.4 Primary: psychosocial functioning (continuous), at end of treatment

1

50

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.64 [‐5.76, 4.48]

22.1.5 Primary: psychosocial functioning (continuous), at 0‐6 months follow‐up

1

50

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.23 [‐6.94, 4.48]

22.1.6 Primary: psychosocial functioning (continuous), at 6‐12 months follow‐up

1

50

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.61 [‐5.00, 6.22]

22.1.7 Secondary: depression (continuous), at end of treatment

1

50

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.76 [‐8.20, 9.72]

22.1.8 Secondary: depression (continuous), at 0‐6 months follow‐up

1

50

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.13 [‐4.05, 10.31]

22.1.9 Secondary: depression (continuous), at 6‐12 months follow‐up

1

50

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.77 [‐7.08, 8.62]

22.2 CBT vs trauma‐ and anxiety‐related group psychoeducation, secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

22.3 CBT vs interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) (continuous) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

22.3.1 Primary: psychosocial functioning (continuous), at end of treatment

1

26

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐5.30 [‐12.36, 1.76]

22.3.2 Secondary: depression (continuous), at end of treatment

1

26

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.40 [‐4.72, 3.92]

22.4 CBT vs IPT, secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

22.5 CBT vs Rogerian supportive therapy (continuous) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

22.5.1 Primary: self‐harm (continuous), end of treatment

1

38

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.74 [‐0.03, 1.51]

22.5.2 Primary: self‐harm (continuous), at 6‐12 months follow‐up

1

21

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.63 [‐1.75, 0.49]

22.5.3 Primary: suicide‐related outcomes (continuous), at end of treatment

1

38

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.69 [‐2.60, 3.98]

22.5.4 Primary: suicide‐related outcomes (continuous), at 6‐12 months follow‐up

1

21

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐2.43 [‐6.14, 1.28]

22.5.5 Primary: psychosocial functioning (continuous), at end of treatment

1

38

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.43 [‐1.31, 0.45]

22.5.6 Primary: psychosocial functioning (continuous), at 6‐12 months follow‐up

1

21

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.98 [‐2.02, 0.06]

22.5.7 Secondary: impulsivity (continuous), at end of treatment

1

38

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.01 [‐3.85, 1.83]

22.5.8 Secondary: impulsivity (continuous), at 6‐12 months follow‐up

1

21

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐2.18 [‐5.91, 1.55]

22.5.9 Secondary: depression (continuous), at end of treatment

1

38

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.04 [‐5.59, 7.67]

22.5.10 Secondary: depression (continuous), at 6‐12 months follow‐up

1

21

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐5.15 [‐9.38, ‐0.92]

22.6 CBT vs Rogerian supportive therapy, secondary: attrition (dichotomous), end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

22.7 MACT (Manual‐assisted Cognitive Therapy) vs MACT + therapeutic assessment (MACT + TA) (continuous) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

22.7.1 Primary: BPD symptom severity (continuous), at end of treatment

1

16

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐3.75 [‐14.17, 6.67]

22.7.2 Primary: self‐harm (continuous), at end of treatment

1

16

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.75 [‐18.71, 22.21]

22.7.3 Primary: suicide‐related outcomes (continuous), at end of treatment

1

16

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.63 [‐17.71, 16.45]

22.7.4 Secondary: affective instability (continuous), at end of treatment

1

16

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐5.25 [‐12.10, 1.60]

22.7.5 Secondary: interpersonal problems (continuous), at end of treatment

1

16

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.50 [‐11.24, 10.24]

22.7.6 Secondary: identity disturbance (continuous), at end of treatment

1

16

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐4.88 [‐14.98, 5.22]

22.8 MACT vs MACT + TA, secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

22.9 Meta‐Cognitive training for BPD (B‐MCT) vs progressive muscle relaxation training (PMR) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

22.9.1 Primary: BPD symptom severity (continuous), at end of treatment

1

49

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.80 [‐4.97, 1.37]

22.9.2 Primary: BPD symptom severity (continuous), at 0‐6 months follow up

1

39

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐3.60 [‐7.16, ‐0.04]

22.9.3 Secondary: depression (continuous), at end of treatment

1

54

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐3.20 [‐9.91, 3.51]

22.9.4 Secondary: depression (continuous), at 0‐6 months follow‐up

1

47

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

8.50 [2.03, 14.97]

22.10 B‐MCT vs progressive muscle relaxation (PMR) training + TAU (dichotomous). Secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

22.11 MOTR (Motive‐Oriented Therapeutic Relationship) vs Good Psychiatric Management (GPM) (continuous) Show forest plot

2

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

22.11.1 Primary: BPD symptom severity (continuous), at end of treatment

1

74

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.07 [‐0.39, 0.53]

22.11.2 Primary: psychosocial functioning (continuous), at end of treatment

2

99

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.45 [‐0.85, ‐0.05]

22.11.3 Secondary: interpersonal problems (continuous), at end of treatment

2

99

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.56 [‐0.97, ‐0.16]

22.12 MOTR vs (GPM), secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

2

110

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.61 [0.26, 1.41]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 22. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and related treatments vs active treatment
Comparison 23. Schema‐focused therapy (SFT) vs active treatment

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

23.1 SFT vs TFP. Primary: BPD symptom severity (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

23.2 SFT vs TFP. Secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at 0‐6 months follow‐up Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

23.3 SFT vs SFT + therapist availability (TA). Primary: BPD symptom severity (continuous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

23.4 SFT vs SFT + TA. Secondary: attrition (dichotomous), 0‐6 months follow‐up Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 23. Schema‐focused therapy (SFT) vs active treatment
Comparison 24. Systems training for emotional predictability and problem solving‐based psychoeducation (STEPPS‐PE) vs cognitive rehabilitation (CR)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

24.1 STEPPS‐PE vs CR Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

24.1.1 Primary: BPD symptom severity (continuous), at end of treatment

1

46

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐3.67 [‐6.52, ‐0.82]

24.1.2 Primary: BPD symptom severity (continuous), at 0‐6 months follow‐up

1

42

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

4.68 [1.42, 7.94]

24.1.3 Secondary: impulsivity (continuous), at end of treatment

1

46

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.99 [0.06, 3.92]

24.1.4 Secondary: impulsivity (continuous), at 0‐6 months follow‐up

1

42

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

9.92 [7.38, 12.46]

24.1.5 Secondary: depression (continuous), at end of treatment

1

48

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐2.58 [‐3.62, ‐1.54]

24.1.6 Secondary: depression (continuous), at 0‐6 months follow‐up

1

42

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐10.11 [‐11.35, ‐8.87]

24.2 STEPPS‐PE vs CR. Secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 24. Systems training for emotional predictability and problem solving‐based psychoeducation (STEPPS‐PE) vs cognitive rehabilitation (CR)
Comparison 25. Eclectic treatments vs active treatment

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

25.1 Combined inpatient and outpatient psychotherapy versus outpatient psychotherapy Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

25.1.1 Primary: psychosocial functioning (continuous), at end of treatment

1

52

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

6.50 [‐0.06, 13.06]

25.1.2 Primary: psychosocial functioning (continuous), at above 12 months follow‐up

1

52

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐5.70 [‐13.33, 1.93]

25.1.3 Secondary: interpersonal problems (continuous), at end of treatment

1

52

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.05 [‐0.24, 0.34]

25.1.4 Secondary: interpersonal problems (continuous), at above 12 months follow‐up

1

52

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.42 [‐0.77, ‐0.07]

25.1.5 Secondary: identity disturbance (continuous), at end of treatment

1

52

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.25 [‐0.59, 0.09]

25.1.6 Secondary: identity disturbance (continuous), at above 12 months follow‐up

1

52

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.47 [‐0.78, ‐0.16]

25.1.7 Secondary: depression (continuous), at end of treatment

1

52

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.40 [‐6.25, 5.45]

25.1.8 Secondary: depression (continuous), at above 12 months follow‐up

1

52

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐4.70 [‐11.02, 1.62]

25.2 Combined inpatient and outpatient psychotherapy versus outpatient psychotherapy. Secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

25.3 integrative BPD‐oriented adolescent family therapy (I‐BAFT) vs individual drug counselling (IDC) Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

25.3.1 Primary: BPD symptom severity (dichotomous), at end of treatment

1

40

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.91 [0.50, 1.64]

25.3.2 Secondary: attrition (dichotomous), at 6‐12 months follow‐up

1

40

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.50 [0.18, 1.40]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 25. Eclectic treatments vs active treatment
Comparison 26. Subgroup analysis: therapeutic approaches

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

26.1 BPD symptom severity Show forest plot

23

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

26.1.1 DBT

3

149

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.60 [‐1.05, ‐0.14]

26.1.2 MBT

5

267

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.13 [‐0.38, 0.11]

26.1.3 Psychodynamic psychotherapy

4

222

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.29 [‐0.66, 0.09]

26.1.4 STEPPS

3

273

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.39 [‐0.63, ‐0.15]

26.1.5 Eclectic treatments

3

134

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.90 [‐1.57, ‐0.23]

26.1.6 ACT

1

41

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.22 [‐1.89, ‐0.55]

26.1.7 CBT

1

26

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.28 [‐2.14, ‐0.42]

26.1.8 SFT

1

28

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.66 [‐2.54, ‐0.78]

26.1.9 CAT

1

9

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.53 [‐1.88, 0.83]

26.1.10 Tranference‐focused psychotherapy

1

104

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.55 [‐0.95, ‐0.16]

26.2 Psychosocial functioning Show forest plot

22

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

26.2.1 DBT

6

225

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.36 [‐0.69, ‐0.03]

26.2.2 MBT

3

239

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.54 [‐1.24, 0.16]

26.2.3 Psychodynamic psychotherapy

4

140

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.69 [‐1.98, 0.59]

26.2.4 Eclectic treatments

2

231

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.57 [‐1.10, ‐0.04]

26.2.5 CBT

1

99

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.00 [‐0.39, 0.39]

26.2.6 SFT

1

28

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.20 [‐2.03, ‐0.38]

26.2.7 STEPPS

1

124

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.55 [‐0.91, ‐0.19]

26.2.8 CAT

1

9

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.22 [‐2.73, 0.30]

26.2.9 Motivation feedback

1

43

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.07 [‐0.69, 0.55]

26.2.10 Tranference‐focused psychotherapy

1

104

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.34 [‐0.73, 0.05]

26.2.11 Once‐only intervention

1

72

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.03 [‐0.43, 0.49]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 26. Subgroup analysis: therapeutic approaches
Comparison 27. Subgroup analysis: age

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

27.1 BPD symptom severity Show forest plot

22

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

27.1.1 15 to 18 years old

2

156

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.14 [‐0.46, 0.17]

27.1.2 Above 18 years old

20

1088

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.57 [‐0.76, ‐0.37]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 27. Subgroup analysis: age
Comparison 28. Subgroup analysis: duration

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

28.1 BPD symptom severity Show forest plot

22

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

28.1.1 Less than 6 months

8

525

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.76 [‐1.10, ‐0.42]

28.1.2 6 to 12 months

11

606

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.36 [‐0.60, ‐0.12]

28.1.3 Above 12 months

3

113

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.37 [‐0.75, 0.01]

28.2 Psychosocial functioning Show forest plot

20

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

28.2.1 Less than 6 months

6

468

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.31 [‐0.73, 0.11]

28.2.2 6 to 12 months

10

535

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.25 [‐0.49, ‐0.01]

28.2.3 Over 12 months

4

263

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.86 [‐1.62, ‐0.10]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 28. Subgroup analysis: duration
Comparison 29. Subgroup analysis: mode of therapy

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

29.1 BPD symptom severity Show forest plot

22

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

29.1.1 Individual therapy

8

520

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.39 [‐0.63, ‐0.16]

29.1.2 Group therapy

8

438

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.89 [‐1.21, ‐0.57]

29.1.3 Mixed therapy

6

286

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.15 [‐0.38, 0.09]

29.2 Psychosocial functioning Show forest plot

22

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

29.2.1 Individual therapy

8

570

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.31 [‐0.75, 0.12]

29.2.2 Group therapy

7

366

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.44 [‐0.65, ‐0.23]

29.2.3 Mixed therapy

7

378

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.63 [‐1.14, ‐0.13]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 29. Subgroup analysis: mode of therapy
Comparison 30. Subgroup analysis: setting

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

30.1 BPD symptom severity Show forest plot

22

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

30.1.1 Inpatient

2

217

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.07 [‐0.34, 0.20]

30.1.2 Outpatient

20

1027

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.58 [‐0.77, ‐0.39]

30.2 Psychosocial functioning Show forest plot

22

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

30.2.1 Inpatient

2

179

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.85 [‐1.24, ‐0.46]

30.2.2 Outpatient

18

1057

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.31 [‐0.54, ‐0.08]

30.2.3 Inpatient and outpatient

2

78

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.34 [‐1.84, ‐0.84]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 30. Subgroup analysis: setting
Comparison 31. Subgroup analysis: types of raters

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

31.1 BPD symptom severity Show forest plot

22

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

31.1.1 Self‐rated

8

408

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.74 [‐1.19, ‐0.29]

31.1.2 Clinician‐rated

14

836

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.42 [‐0.58, ‐0.25]

31.2 Psychosocial functioning Show forest plot

22

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

31.2.1 Self‐rated

12

728

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.29 [‐0.60, 0.03]

31.2.2 Clinician‐rated

10

586

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.66 [‐0.96, ‐0.37]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 31. Subgroup analysis: types of raters
Comparison 32. Subgroup analysis: types of TAU

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

32.1 BPD symptom severity Show forest plot

22

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

32.1.1 Obligatory TAU

19

1071

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.50 [‐0.70, ‐0.30]

32.1.2 Optional TAU

3

173

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.63 [‐1.09, ‐0.17]

32.2 Psychosocial functioning Show forest plot

22

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

32.2.1 Obligatory TAU

17

1002

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.32 [‐0.56, ‐0.09]

32.2.2 Optional TAU

5

312

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.96 [‐1.62, ‐0.30]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 32. Subgroup analysis: types of TAU
Comparison 33. Subgroup analysis: type of comparison group

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

33.1 BPD symptom severity Show forest plot

25

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

33.1.1 TAU

22

1244

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.52 [‐0.70, ‐0.33]

33.1.2 Waiting list

3

161

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.49 [‐0.93, ‐0.05]

33.2 Psychosocial functioning Show forest plot

27

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

33.2.1 TAU

22

1314

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.45 [‐0.68, ‐0.22]

33.2.2 Waiting list

5

219

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.56 [‐1.01, ‐0.11]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 33. Subgroup analysis: type of comparison group
Comparison 34. Subgroup analysis: types of scales

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

34.1 BPD symptom severity Show forest plot

22

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

34.1.1 ZAN‐BPD

4

261

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.45 [‐0.69, ‐0.20]

34.1.2 SCID

3

112

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.58 [‐1.16, ‐0.00]

34.1.3 BEST

4

147

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.10 [‐1.47, ‐0.72]

34.1.4 BPDSI

4

267

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.21 [‐0.45, 0.04]

34.1.5 BPP‐40

1

52

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.55 [‐1.11, 0.00]

34.1.6 CGI‐BPD

1

33

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.00 [‐0.68, 0.68]

34.1.7 CCGI‐BPD

1

59

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.01 [‐1.55, ‐0.47]

34.1.8 BPT

1

122

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.07 [‐0.43, 0.28]

34.1.9 BPFS‐C

1

59

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.01 [‐0.52, 0.50]

34.1.10 BSI

1

28

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.66 [‐2.54, ‐0.78]

34.1.11 Mean number of DSM‐IV symptoms

1

104

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.55 [‐0.95, ‐0.16]

34.2 Psychosocial functioning Show forest plot

22

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

34.2.1 GAF

4

204

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.73 [‐1.41, ‐0.05]

34.2.2 GAS

4

330

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.71 [‐0.96, ‐0.46]

34.2.3 SAS

4

283

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.23 [‐0.99, 0.53]

34.2.4 SPS

1

24

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐2.17 [‐3.22, ‐1.13]

34.2.5 QQ45

1

41

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.47 [‐1.09, 0.15]

34.2.6 WSAS

1

72

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.03 [‐0.43, 0.49]

34.2.7 CORE‐OM

1

41

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.29 [‐0.34, 0.92]

34.2.8 BDQ

1

48

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.42 [‐1.00, 0.16]

34.2.9 SOFAS

1

9

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.22 [‐2.73, 0.30]

34.2.10 SFQ

1

99

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.00 [‐0.39, 0.39]

34.2.11 SDS

1

61

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.28 [‐0.78, 0.23]

34.2.12 CGI

1

59

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.29 [‐0.80, 0.22]

34.2.13 HoNOS

1

43

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.07 [‐0.69, 0.55]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 34. Subgroup analysis: types of scales
Comparison 35. TSA sensitivity analyses: psychotherapy versus TAU

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

35.1 Primary: BPD symptom severity, at end of treatment Show forest plot

22

1244

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.47 [‐0.63, ‐0.31]

35.2 Primary: self‐harm Show forest plot

13

616

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.42 [‐0.69, ‐0.15]

35.3 Primary: suicide‐related outcomes Show forest plot

13

676

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.30 [‐0.47, ‐0.14]

35.4 Primary: psychosocial functioning, at end of treatment Show forest plot

22

1314

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.36 [‐0.55, ‐0.17]

35.5 Secondary: depression Show forest plot

22

1568

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.34 [‐0.54, ‐0.14]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 35. TSA sensitivity analyses: psychotherapy versus TAU