Cited by 537Personality Disorders and PsychopathologyAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesBipolar Disorder and Treatment

Personality disorder and the outcome of depression: Meta-analysis of published studies

Open access
Newton-Howes, Giles, Tyrer, Peter, Johnson, Tony·2006·British Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract

Background: There is conflicting evidence about the influence of personality disorder on outcome in depressive disorders. Aims: Meta-analysis of studies in which a categorical assessment of personality disorder or no personality disorder was made in people with depressive disorders, and categorical outcome (recovered/not recovered) also determined. Method: Systematic electronic search of the literature for relevant publications. Hand searches of Journal of Affective Disorders and recent reviews, with subsequent meta-analysis of selected studies. Results: Comorbid personality disorder with depression was associated with a doubling of the risk of a poor outcome for depression compared with no personality disorder (random effects model OR=2.18, 95% C11.70–2.80), a robust finding maintained with only Hamilton-type depression criteria at outcome (OR=2.20, 95% C11.61–3.01). All treatments apart from electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) showed this poor outcome, and the ECT group was small. Conclusions: Combined depression and personality disorder is associated with a poorer outcome than depression alone.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1192/bjp.188.1.13

Cites

71 of 71 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Newton-Howes, G., Tyrer, P., & Johnson, T.
Affiliations
MRC Biostatistics Unit (GB)
Venue
British Journal of Psychiatry
Published
2006-01
Volume
188
Issue
1
Pages
13-20
ISSN
  • 0007-1250 (ISSN-L)
  • 1472-1465
OpenAlex
W2137435000
Cited by
537
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 37 · 2017: 32 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 32 · 2014: 38 · 2013: 35 · 2012: 36
FWCI
3.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The British Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Bipolar Disorder and Treatment
Keywords
personality disorders, depression, comorbidities, treatment outcomes, recovery, electroconvulsive therapy, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, depressive disorders
MeSH terms
Antidepressive Agents, Depressive Disorder, Electroconvulsive Therapy, Humans, Personality Disorders, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Treatment Outcome

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review