Cited by 68Personality Disorders and PsychopathologyPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsBipolar Disorder and Treatment

Effectiveness of psychological treatments for borderline personality disorder and predictors of treatment outcomes: A multivariate multilevel meta-analysis of data from all design types

Open access
Rameckers, Sophie A., Verhoef, Rogier E. J., Grasman, Raoul P. P. P., Cox, Wouter R., van Emmerik, Arnold A. P., Engelmoer, Izabella M., Arntz, Arnoud·2021·Journal of Clinical Medicine

Abstract

We examined the effectiveness of psychotherapies for adult Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) in a multilevel meta-analysis, including all trial types (PROSPERO ID: CRD42020111351). We tested several predictors, including trial- and outcome type (continuous or dichotomous), setting, BPD symptom domain and mean age. We included 87 studies (N = 5881) from searches between 2013 and 2019 in four databases. We controlled for differing treatment lengths and a logarithmic relationship between treatment duration and effectiveness. Sensitivity analyses were conducted by excluding outliers and by prioritizing total scale scores when both subscale and total scores were reported. Schema Therapy, Mentalization-Based Treatment and reduced Dialectical Behavior Therapy were associated with higher effect sizes than average, and treatment-as-usual with lower effect sizes. General severity and affective instability showed the strongest improvement, dissociation, anger, impulsivity and suicidality/self-injury the least. Treatment effectiveness decreased as the age of participants increased. Dichotomous outcomes were associated to larger effects, and analyses based on last observation carried forward to smaller effects. Compared to the average, the highest reductions were found for certain specialized psychotherapies. All BPD domains improved, though not equally. These findings have a high generalizability. However, causal conclusions cannot be drawn, although the design type did not influence the results.

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 · 10.3390/jcm10235622

Cites

53 of 54 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?

  • ST and its trauma processing component ImRs are effective for disorders resulting from interpersonal trauma in childhood, including complex PTSD and personality disorders.

    “First, ST as a whole, as well as its trauma processing component, Imagery Rescripting (ImRs), are effective for disorders that result from interpersonal trauma in childhood, including complex PTSD and personality disorders [e.g., (13–17)].”

    From Schema therapy for Dissociative Identity Disorder: a case report (2023) · cites this paper as [16]

    The Discussion reports that schema therapy (ST) was associated with relatively large improvements in borderline personality disorder outcomes. It does not establish the effectiveness of Imagery Rescripting (ImRs), address complex PTSD, or link the studied outcomes specifically to childhood interpersonal trauma. The claim therefore extends beyond the BPD treatment findings reported here. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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
Rameckers, S. A., Verhoef, R. E. J., Grasman, R. P. P. P., Cox, W. R., van Emmerik, A. A. P., Engelmoer, I. M., & Arntz, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • Utrecht University (NL)
  • Department of Clinical Psychology, University of Amsterdam, 1018 WS Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  • De Viersprong (NL)
Corresponding author
Rameckers, Sophie A.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2021-11-29
Volume
10
Issue
23
Pages
5622
ISSN
2077-0383 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3216210008
Cited by
63
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 10 · 2013: 1
FWCI
1.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Bipolar Disorder and Treatment
Keywords
borderline personality disorder, psychotherapy effectiveness, predictors of treatment outcome, schema therapy, mentalization-based treatment, dialectical behavior therapy, usual care, symptom domains, neuroticism, dissociation, impulsivity, suicidality, self-harm, age effects, trial design

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