Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 346

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 86 of the 86 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The prevalence of personality disorders in the community: a global systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Winsper, Catherine, Bilgin, Ayten, Thompson, Andrew, Marwaha, Steven, Chanen, Andrew M., Singh, Swaran P., Wang, Ariel, Furtado, Vivek·2020·The British Journal of Psychiatry
DOI 10.1192/bjp.2019.166
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background: Personality disorders are now internationally recognised as a mental health priority. Nevertheless, there are no systematic reviews examining the global prevalence of personality disorders. Aims: To calculate the worldwide prevalence of personality disorders and examine whether rates vary between high-income countries and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Method: We systematically searched PsycINFO, MEDLINE, EMBASE and PubMed from January 1980 to May 2018 to identify articles reporting personality disorder prevalence rates in community populations (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42017065094). Results: A total of 46 studies (from 21 different countries spanning 6 continents) satisfied inclusion criteria. The worldwide pooled prevalence of any personality disorder was 7.8% (95% CI 6.1–9.5). Rates were greater in high-income countries (9.6%, 95% CI 7.9–11.3%) compared with LMICs (4.3%, 95% CI 2.6–6.1%). In univariate meta-regressions, significant heterogeneity was partly attributable to study design (two-stage v. one-stage assessment), county income (high-income countries v. LMICs) and interview administration (clinician v. trained graduate). In multiple meta-regression analysis, study design remained a significant predictor of heterogeneity. Global rates of cluster A, B and C personality disorders were 3.8% (95% CI 3.2, 4.4%), 2.8% (1.6, 3.7%) and 5.0% (4.2, 5.9%). Conclusions: Personality disorders are prevalent globally. Nevertheless, pooled prevalence rates should be interpreted with caution due to high levels of heterogeneity. More large-scale studies with standardised methodologies are now needed to increase our understanding of population needs and regional variations.

Overview

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.2019.166

Cites

86 of 86 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 346

Metadata

Authors
Winsper, C., Bilgin, A., Thompson, A., Marwaha, S., Chanen, A. M., Singh, S. P., Wang, A., & Furtado, V.
Venue
The British Journal of Psychiatry
Publisher
Royal College of Psychiatrists
Published
2019-07-12
Volume
216
Issue
2
Pages
69-78
ISSN
  • 0007-1250 (ISSN-L)
  • 1472-1465
DOI
10.1192/bjp.2019.166
OpenAlex
W2955351388
Cited by
346
References
86
FWCI
4.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.