Collaborative assessment as an intervention in the treatment of mental Illness: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Three meta-analyses suggested that the psychological assessment as a therapeutic intervention approach might have therapeutic effects but had unspecific inclusion criteria. METHODS: We searched four databases for RCTs that reported on the use of psychological assessment as an intervention. Two reviewers independently selected papers, extracted data, and assessed study quality.We conducted and reported the systematic review following the PRISMA statement. We assessed the Risk of bias in included studies using the Risk of Bias tool and graded the strength of the evidence with GRADE. RESULTS: We included two RCTs: The first study investigated Therapeutic Assessment (TA) combined with Manual-Assisted Cognitive Behavior Therapy (MACT) compared with MACT only in 16 outpatients with personality disorders. The trial found among completers (n = 7) no difference in borderline symptomatology but a possible difference regarding suicidality favoring MACT + TA. The trial did not provide any outcomes relating to readiness for treatment. The other trial investigated TA compared with a Goal-focused Pretreatment Intervention in a sample of 74 outpatients with personality disorders. The results found no intervention effects on symptomatology but suggested that TA might improve patient expectancy for future treatment among completers of the intervention. Both trials were judged at a high risk of bias and with very low certainty of evidence. DISCUSSION: We found no support for the clinical effect of psychological assessment as a therapeutic intervention due to the high risk of bias and low certainty of the evidence.

The course of borderline personality disorder from adolescence to early adulthood: A 5-year follow-up study.

BACKGROUND: Studies of the medium- to long-term clinical and functional course for treatment-seeking adolescents with borderline personality disorder (BPD) are lacking. This study aims to outline the psychopathological and functional status of participants, five years after being diagnosed with BPD during adolescence. METHODS: Participants were originally enrolled in a randomized clinical trial that compared mentalization-based group treatment with treatment as usual for adolescents with BPD. Semi-structured interview assessments at five-year follow-up included the Schedules for Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry and the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 Personality Disorders. Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), alcohol, substance and tobacco use, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), complex PTSD, and general functioning were assessed using self-report instruments. RESULTS: 97 of the original sample of 111 participants (87%) participated. They were aged 19-23 years. The most prevalent disorders were ADHD (59%), any personality disorder (47%) of which half continued to meet criteria for BPD (24%), anxiety disorders (37%), depressive disorders (32%), PTSD or complex PTSD (20%), schizophrenia (16%), and eating disorders (13%). Only 16% did not meet criteria for any mental disorder. Approximately half of the sample were in psychological and/or psychopharmacological treatment at the time of follow-up. Their general functioning remained impaired, with 36% not engaged in education, employment or training (NEET), which is nearly four times the rate of NEET in the same age group in the general population. CONCLUSIONS: Although stability of the categorical BPD diagnosis is modest, adolescents meeting diagnostic criteria for BPD show a broad range of poor outcomes at five-year follow-up. BPD appears to be a marker of general maladjustment during adolescence and a harbinger of severe problems during the transition to young adulthood. Early intervention programs for adolescents diagnosed with BPD should focus upon a broad range of functional and psychopathological outcomes, especially social and vocational support, rather than the narrow BPD diagnosis.

Psychosocial interventions promoting personal recovery in people with schizophrenia: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Personal recovery is an important aspect for many individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia, as people can live rich, fulfilling lives despite ongoing symptoms. Prior reviews have found several factors to be associated with personal recovery, but a comprehensive overview of the psychosocial interventions aimed at improving personal recovery in schizophrenia is needed. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Key terms relating to personal recovery and psychosocial interventions to promote personal recovery will be searched for in the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, Web of Science Core Collection and Cochrane. Additionally, a simple search for grey literature will be conducted in The Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations. Two reviewers will individually screen and extract the data, and the selection of sources will be documented in a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses flow chart. A content analysis will be conducted on the data, and the findings will be presented in tables, and narratively synthesised. Lastly, research gaps will be identified, and recommendations for future research will be proposed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was not required for the development or publishing of this protocol. Findings will be disseminated through conferences, meeting with patient organisations and consumers, and published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Non-prescribing of clozapine for outpatients with schizophrenia in real-world settings: The clinicians' perspectives.

Clozapine is the gold standard for treating treatment-resistant schizophrenia although continuously underutilized. Previous surveys of clinicians have found that some of the most frequently cited barriers to clozapine prescribing are related to the blood-monitoring requirements. However, these surveys tend to explore general perspectives and may not reflect the true impact of different barriers in real-world outpatient settings. This study aimed to explore this issue. First, by surveying the clinicians responsible for the treatment of 39 clozapine-eligible, yet clozapine-naive, outpatients with schizophrenia. Then, based on the survey results, explanatory interviews with the participating psychiatrists were conducted and analyzed thematically. The most frequently cited reason for non-prescribing of clozapine was the expected non-compliance with blood-monitoring requirements; however, overall stability and/or severe mental illness was chosen as the most important reason in most patient-cases. The qualitative analysis highlighted the combined impact of standard clinical practice, personal experiences, and organizational constraints on clozapine utility.

How first-episode psychosis patients' subjective beliefs about their childhood trauma's causal effect provide support for potential schizophrenia subtypes.

BACKGROUND: Childhood and adolescent trauma is a risk factor for developing psychosis-spectrum disorders. The current study aimed to assess how childhood trauma might predict psychosis symptomatology, and how patients' beliefs of whether trauma is the cause of psychosis might affect this association. METHODS: Ninety-six first-episode psychosis patients were assessed for childhood traumatic experiences with the Brief Betrayal Trauma Survey, and for psychosis symptoms with the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale. RESULTS: Non-interpersonal trauma predicted higher positive symptoms, whereas more trauma domains experienced predicted lower negative symptoms. Almost half of the participants believed trauma to be related to psychosis, were 12 times more likely to reexperience trauma through psychosis, and had higher excitative and emotional symptoms. Non-interpersonal trauma also predicted higher positive symptoms in this group. Those who did not believe trauma to be the cause of psychosis had higher negative symptoms, and a negative dose-response was found for negative and disorganised symptoms, in which more trauma domains experienced predicted lower scores. CONCLUSIONS: Results imply two traumagenic pathways to psychosis, one characterised by positive, excitative, and emotional symptoms, and one negative subtype, characterised by negative and disorganised symptoms. Clinical implications for how findings might contribute to better treatments are discussed.

Correction: Psychiatric Treatment Conducted via Telemedicine Versus In-Person Modality in Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, Mood Disorders, and Anxiety Disorders: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.2196/44790.].

Prevalence and incidence of personality disorders among children and adolescents in Danish mental health services: a nationwide register study.

A few epidemiological studies have examined personality disorders (PDs) among children and adolescents in secondary mental health services. This study aims to describe the prevalence and incidence of PDs among children and adolescents who have attended Danish child and adolescent psychiatric services (CAPS). Using register-based data, we studied all patients under the age of 18 years who were admitted to in- and outpatient CAPS (N = 115,121) in Denmark from 2007 to 2017. A total of 4952 patients were diagnosed with a PD during the study period. The mean prevalence was 859 patients per year, and the mean incidence was 274 patients per year, including an increased incidence and prevalence of borderline, anxious, and unspecified PDs over the decade. The number of patients diagnosed with PDs increased from 700 to 851 per year, but the proportion of patients with PDs compared to all psychiatric diagnoses decreased from 4.2% to 2.8% over the study period. The PD population had an older age (14.8 years vs. 11.3 years; p < 0.001), a higher likelihood of being female (74% vs. 44%; p < 0.001), and four times more contacts with the psychiatric emergency departments than other patients with a psychiatric diagnosis. Future studies should focus on (a) implementing further epidemiological studies in different countries; (b) tracking diagnostic practices to facilitate comparisons and provide feedback for training clinicians and raising awareness; and (c) estimating trajectories of PDs, including costs within the CAPS, to facilitate informed decision-making regarding the future organization and provision of services to these children, adolescents, and their families.

Risk of bias in randomized clinical trials on psychedelic medicine: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The classical psychedelics, psilocybin, peyote, ayahuasca/N,N-dimethyltryptamine, and lysergic acid diethylamide are considered promising new treatments for psychiatric illnesses, such as depression, anxiety, addiction, and obsessive-compulsive disorders. However, their profound and characteristic subjective effects raise concern for distinctive biases in randomized clinical trials. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search to identify all clinical trials on classical psychedelics with patient populations to examine descriptive data and determine the risk of bias. Two independent reviewers searched three databases (PubMed, Embase, and APA PsycNet) and extracted information on study design, study population, use of active or inactive placebo, dropouts, evaluation of blinding of intervention, and reporting of expectancy and therapeutic alliance. RESULTS: We included 10 papers reporting on 10 unique trials. The trials generally included populations that were predominantly white and highly educated. The trials had small samples and considerable dropout. Blinding was either unsuccessful or not reported regardless of type of placebo. Few trials published protocols, statistical analysis plans (SAPs), and outcomes relating to psychotherapy fidelity. All trials but one were rated as high risk of bias. CONCLUSION: Successful blinding of intervention is a significant challenge in this field. To better accommodate this, we suggest that future trials use a parallel-group design and utilize an active placebo on a psychedelic-naïve population. Future trials should publish trial protocol and SAPs, use clinician-rated outcomes accessed by a blinded rater, evaluate blinding of intervention, and consider measuring expectancy and therapeutic fidelity.

Psychiatric Treatment Conducted via Telemedicine Versus In-Person Modality in Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, Mood Disorders, and Anxiety Disorders: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Telemedicine has played a vital role in providing psychiatric treatment to patients during the rapid transition of services during the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, the use of telemedicine is expected to expand within the psychiatric field. The efficacy of telemedicine is well described in scientific literature. However, there is a need for a comprehensive quantitative review that analyzes and considers the different clinical outcomes and psychiatric diagnoses. OBJECTIVE: This paper aimed to assess whether individual psychiatric outpatient treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder, mood disorders, and anxiety disorders in adults using telemedicine is equivalent to in-person treatment. METHODS: A systematic search of randomized controlled trials was conducted using recognized databases for this review. Overall, 4 outcomes were assessed: treatment efficacy, levels of patient satisfaction, working alliance, and attrition rate. The inverse-variance method was used to summarize the effect size for each outcome. RESULTS: A total of 7414 records were identified, and 20 trials were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. The trials included posttraumatic stress disorder (9 trials), depressive disorder (6 trials), a mix of different disorders (4 trials), and general anxiety disorder (1 trial). Overall, the analyses yielded evidence that telemedicine is comparable with in-person treatment regarding treatment efficacy (standardized mean difference -0.01, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.09; P=.84; I2=19%, 17 trials, n=1814), patient satisfaction mean difference (-0.66, 95% CI -1.60 to 0.28; P=.17; I2=44%, 6 trials, n=591), and attrition rates (risk ratio 1.07, 95% CI 0.94-1.21; P=.32; I2=0%, 20 trials, n=2804). The results also indicated that the working alliance between telemedicine and in-person modalities was comparable, but the heterogeneity was substantial to considerable (mean difference 0.95, 95% CI -0.47 to 2.38; P=.19; I2=75%, 6 trials, n=539). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis provided new knowledge on individual telemedicine interventions that were considered equivalent to in-person treatment regarding efficacy, patient satisfaction, working alliance, and attrition rates across diagnoses. The certainty of the evidence regarding efficacy was rated as moderate. Furthermore, high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to strengthen the evidence base for treatment provided via telemedicine in psychiatry, particularly for personality disorders and a range of anxiety disorders where there is a lack of studies. Individual patient data meta-analysis is suggested for future studies to personalize telemedicine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42021256357; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=256357.

Methylphenidate for children and adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

BACKGROUND: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most commonly diagnosed and treated psychiatric disorders in childhood. Typically, children and adolescents with ADHD find it difficult to pay attention and they are hyperactive and impulsive. Methylphenidate is the psychostimulant most often prescribed, but the evidence on benefits and harms is uncertain. This is an update of our comprehensive systematic review on benefits and harms published in 2015. OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of methylphenidate for children and adolescents with ADHD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases and two trials registers up to March 2022. In addition, we checked reference lists and requested published and unpublished data from manufacturers of methylphenidate. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing methylphenidate versus placebo or no intervention in children and adolescents aged 18 years and younger with a diagnosis of ADHD. The search was not limited by publication year or language, but trial inclusion required that 75% or more of participants had a normal intellectual quotient (IQ > 70). We assessed two primary outcomes, ADHD symptoms and serious adverse events, and three secondary outcomes, adverse events considered non-serious, general behaviour, and quality of life. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently conducted data extraction and risk of bias assessment for each trial. Six review authors including two review authors from the original publication participated in the update in 2022. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Data from parallel-group trials and first-period data from cross-over trials formed the basis of our primary analyses. We undertook separate analyses using end-of-last period data from cross-over trials. We used Trial Sequential Analyses (TSA) to control for type I (5%) and type II (20%) errors, and we assessed and downgraded evidence according to the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 212 trials (16,302 participants randomised); 55 parallel-group trials (8104 participants randomised), and 156 cross-over trials (8033 participants randomised) as well as one trial with a parallel phase (114 participants randomised) and a cross-over phase (165 participants randomised). The mean age of participants was 9.8 years ranging from 3 to 18 years (two trials from 3 to 21 years). The male-female ratio was 3:1. Most trials were carried out in high-income countries, and 86/212 included trials (41%) were funded or partly funded by the pharmaceutical industry. Methylphenidate treatment duration ranged from 1 to 425 days, with a mean duration of 28.8 days. Trials compared methylphenidate with placebo (200 trials) and with no intervention (12 trials). Only 165/212 trials included usable data on one or more outcomes from 14,271 participants. Of the 212 trials, we assessed 191 at high risk of bias and 21 at low risk of bias. If, however, deblinding of methylphenidate due to typical adverse events is considered, then all 212 trials were at high risk of bias. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: methylphenidate versus placebo or no intervention may improve teacher-rated ADHD symptoms (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.88 to -0.61; I² = 38%; 21 trials; 1728 participants; very low-certainty evidence). This corresponds to a mean difference (MD) of -10.58 (95% CI -12.58 to -8.72) on the ADHD Rating Scale (ADHD-RS; range 0 to 72 points). The minimal clinically relevant difference is considered to be a change of 6.6 points on the ADHD-RS. Methylphenidate may not affect serious adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.67; I² = 0%; 26 trials, 3673 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The TSA-adjusted intervention effect was RR 0.91 (CI 0.31 to 2.68). SECONDARY OUTCOMES: methylphenidate may cause more adverse events considered non-serious versus placebo or no intervention (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.37; I² = 72%; 35 trials 5342 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The TSA-adjusted intervention effect was RR 1.22 (CI 1.08 to 1.43). Methylphenidate may improve teacher-rated general behaviour versus placebo (SMD -0.62, 95% CI -0.91 to -0.33; I² = 68%; 7 trials 792 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but may not affect quality of life (SMD 0.40, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.83; I² = 81%; 4 trials, 608 participants; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The majority of our conclusions from the 2015 version of this review still apply. Our updated meta-analyses suggest that methylphenidate versus placebo or no-intervention may improve teacher-rated ADHD symptoms and general behaviour in children and adolescents with ADHD. There may be no effects on serious adverse events and quality of life. Methylphenidate may be associated with an increased risk of adverse events considered non-serious, such as sleep problems and decreased appetite. However, the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes is very low and therefore the true magnitude of effects remain unclear. Due to the frequency of non-serious adverse events associated with methylphenidate, the blinding of participants and outcome assessors is particularly challenging. To accommodate this challenge, an active placebo should be sought and utilised. It may be difficult to find such a drug, but identifying a substance that could mimic the easily recognised adverse effects of methylphenidate would avert the unblinding that detrimentally affects current randomised trials. Future systematic reviews should investigate the subgroups of patients with ADHD that may benefit most and least from methylphenidate. This could be done with individual participant data to investigate predictors and modifiers like age, comorbidity, and ADHD subtypes.

Clinical trials in personality disorders: Recommendations for study design and conduct.

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a highly studied condition. During the last 3 decades, the understanding of the disorder has substantially changed, based on thorough, accumulating research. At the same time, the interest in BPD is still not decreasing but continues to grow. This article aims to critically discuss research trends in clinical trials of personality disorders in general and BPD in particular, to highlight topics that deserve closer attention, and to give recommendations for the design and conduct of future psychotherapy or pharmacotherapy studies in the field. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Perspectives on Dialectical Behavior Therapy and Mentalization-Based Therapy for Borderline Personality Disorder: Same, Different, Complementary?

Current evidence suggests that individuals with borderline personality disorder (BPD) are likely to benefit from specialized, or BPD-specific, treatments. Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) and mentalization-based treatment (MBT) are currently the most intensively researched BPD treatments. Reviewing the current research, this paper highlights similarities and differences between the two treatments, and discusses possible ways they could complement each other. As the effectiveness of specialized treatments for BPD in general has been determined with some certainty, research now tends towards individualized approaches, identifying predictors of optimal treatment response. However, it is still to be settled who might profit from a combination of or sequential treatment with DBT and MBT.

What is the effect of using collaborative assessment on symptomatology as an intervention in the treatment of mental illness? A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians usually conduct diagnostic assessments in order to establish a diagnosis or to evaluate the effect of treatment. Two meta-analyses suggest that diagnostic assessment administered in collaboration with the patient and personalized feedback might have a therapeutic effect. METHODS: We aim to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect on symptomatology when using assessment as a therapeutic intervention for patients with psychiatric illnesses. We will search in five relevant electronic databases. Two reviewers will independently select papers following pre-defined eligibility criteria, extract data, and assess the quality of included studies. Randomized controlled trials comparing the effect of psychological assessment with other psychotherapeutic interventions in populations of patients will be included in the meta-analysis. We will extract data on symptom-related outcomes, quality of life, dropout, and re-diagnosis and use meta-analysis techniques to compute the effect size of interventions using assessment as a psychotherapeutic intervention. The review will be conducted and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. Risk of bias will be assessed by using the Risk of Bias tool RoB 2.0 of the Cochrane Collaboration, and the certainty of the body of evidence will be assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. DISCUSSION: THE RESULTS WILL BE ABLE TO INFORM CLINICIANS AND POLICYMAKERS ON THE EFFECT OF ASSESSMENT AND, DEPENDING ON THE RESULTS, COULD LEAD TO A RECOMMENDATION FOR MODIFIED ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES AND APPROACHES IN MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES. ULTIMATELY, IT MIGHT IMPROVE THE TREATMENT OUTCOME IN MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES.: SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021270567.

Pharmacological interventions for people with borderline personality disorder.

BACKGROUND: Among people with a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder (BPD) who are engaged in clinical care, prescription rates of psychotropic medications are high, despite the fact that medication use is off-label as a treatment for BPD. Nevertheless, people with BPD often receive several psychotropic drugs at a time for sustained periods. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of pharmacological treatment for people with BPD. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 14 other databases and four trials registers up to February 2022. We contacted researchers working in the field to ask for additional data from published and unpublished trials, and handsearched relevant journals. We did not restrict the search by year of publication, language or type of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing pharmacological treatment to placebo, other pharmacologic treatments or a combination of pharmacologic treatments in people of all ages with a formal diagnosis of BPD. The primary outcomes were BPD symptom severity, self-harm, suicide-related outcomes, and psychosocial functioning. Secondary outcomes were individual BPD symptoms, depression, attrition and adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, assessed risk of bias using Cochrane's risk of bias tool and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We performed data analysis using Review Manager 5 and quantified the statistical reliability of the data using Trial Sequential Analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included 46 randomised controlled trials (2769 participants) in this review, 45 of which were eligible for quantitative analysis and comprised 2752 participants with BPD in total. This is 18 more trials than the 2010 review on this topic. Participants were predominantly female except for one trial that included men only. The mean age ranged from 16.2 to 39.7 years across the included trials. Twenty-nine different types of medications compared to placebo or other medications were included in the analyses. Seventeen trials were funded or partially funded by the pharmaceutical industry, 10 were funded by universities or research foundations, eight received no funding, and 11 had unclear funding. For all reported effect sizes, negative effect estimates indicate beneficial effects by active medication. Compared with placebo, no difference in effects were observed on any of the primary outcomes at the end of treatment for any medication. Compared with placebo, medication may have little to no effect on BPD symptom severity, although the evidence is of very low certainty (antipsychotics: SMD -0.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.45 to 0.08; 8 trials, 951 participants; antidepressants: SMD -0.27, 95% CI -0.65 to 1.18; 2 trials, 87 participants; mood stabilisers: SMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.57; 4 trials, 265 participants). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of medication compared with placebo on self-harm, indicating little to no effect (antipsychotics: RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.84; 2 trials, 76 participants; antidepressants: MD 0.45 points on the Overt Aggression Scale-Modified-Self-Injury item (0-5 points), 95% CI -10.55 to 11.45; 1 trial, 20 participants; mood stabilisers: RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.48; 1 trial, 276 participants). The evidence is also very uncertain about the effect of medication compared with placebo on suicide-related outcomes, with little to no effect (antipsychotics: SMD 0.05, 95 % CI -0.18 to 0.29; 7 trials, 854 participants; antidepressants: SMD -0.26, 95% CI -1.62 to 1.09; 2 trials, 45 participants; mood stabilisers: SMD -0.36, 95% CI -1.96 to 1.25; 2 trials, 44 participants). Very low-certainty evidence shows little to no difference between medication and placebo on psychosocial functioning (antipsychotics: SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.00; 7 trials, 904 participants; antidepressants: SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.06; 4 trials, 161 participants; mood stabilisers: SMD -0.01, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.26; 2 trials, 214 participants). Low-certainty evidence suggests that antipsychotics may slightly reduce interpersonal problems (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.08; 8 trials, 907 participants), and that mood stabilisers may result in a reduction in this outcome (SMD -0.58, 95% CI -1.14 to -0.02; 4 trials, 300 participants). Antidepressants may have little to no effect on interpersonal problems, but the corresponding evidence is very uncertain (SMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.69 to 0.55; 2 trials, 119 participants). The evidence is very uncertain about dropout rates compared with placebo by antipsychotics (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.38; 13 trials, 1216 participants). Low-certainty evidence suggests there may be no difference in dropout rates between antidepressants (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.76; 6 trials, 289 participants) and mood stabilisers (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.15; 9 trials, 530 participants), compared to placebo. Reporting on adverse events was poor and mostly non-standardised. The available evidence on non-serious adverse events was of very low certainty for antipsychotics (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.29; 5 trials, 814 participants) and mood stabilisers (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.01; 1 trial, 276 participants). For antidepressants, no data on adverse events were identified. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review included 18 more trials than the 2010 version, so larger meta-analyses with more statistical power were feasible. We found mostly very low-certainty evidence that medication may result in no difference in any primary outcome. The rest of the secondary outcomes were inconclusive. Very limited data were available for serious adverse events. The review supports the continued understanding that no pharmacological therapy seems effective in specifically treating BPD pathology. More research is needed to understand the underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms of BPD better. Also, more trials including comorbidities such as trauma-related disorders, major depression, substance use disorders, or eating disorders are needed. Additionally, more focus should be put on male and adolescent samples.

Psychiatric treatment conducted via telemedicine versus in-person consultations in mood, anxiety and personality disorders: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Major advancements in technology have led to considerations how telemedicine (TM) and other technology platforms can be meaningfully integrated in treatment for psychiatric disorders. The COVID-19 pandemic has placed a further focus on use of TM in psychiatry. Despite the widespread use of TM, little is known about its effect compared with traditional in-person (IP) consultation. The objective of this systematic review is to examine if individual psychiatric outpatient interventions for adults using TM are comparable to IP in terms of (1) psychopathology outcomes, (2) levels of patient satisfaction, (3) working alliance and (4) dropout from treatment. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This review will only include randomised controlled trials for adult participants with mood disorders, anxiety or personality disorders. The primary outcome is psychopathology, and secondary outcomes include patient satisfaction, treatment alliance and dropout rate. Systematic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, APA PsycINFO, Embase, Web of Science and CINAHL. The inverse-variance method will be used to conduct the meta-analysis. Effect sizes will be calculated as standardised mean difference (Hedges' g) for the primary outcome, mean difference for patient satisfaction and working alliance, and risk ratio for the dropout rate. Effect sizes will be supplemented with 95% CI. We will calculate the I² statistic to quantify heterogeneity and Chi-square statistic (χ²) to test for heterogeneity for the primary outcome. Potential clinical and methodological heterogeneity moderators will be assessed in subgroup and sensitivity analysis. The risk of bias will be assessed by Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool V.2, and confidence in cumulative evidence will be assessed by Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical approval is required for this systematic review protocol. Data sets will be deposited in the Zenodo repository. The findings of this study will be published in a peer-review scientific journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021256357.

Control interventions in randomised trials among people with mental health disorders.

BACKGROUND: Control interventions in randomised trials provide a frame of reference for the experimental interventions and enable estimations of causality. In the case of randomised trials assessing patients with mental health disorders, many different control interventions are used, and the choice of control intervention may have considerable impact on the estimated effects of the treatments being evaluated. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of typical control interventions in randomised trials with patients with mental health disorders. The difference in effects between control interventions translates directly to the impact a control group has on the estimated effect of an experimental intervention. We aimed primarily to assess the difference in effects between (i) wait-list versus no-treatment, (ii) usual care versus wait-list or no-treatment, and (iii) placebo interventions (all placebo interventions combined or psychological, pharmacological, and physical placebos individually) versus wait-list or no-treatment. Wait-list patients are offered the experimental intervention by the researchers after the trial has been finalised if it offers more benefits than harms, while no-treatment participants are not offered the experimental intervention by the researchers. SEARCH METHODS: In March 2018, we searched MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Embase, CENTRAL, and seven other databases and six trials registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials assessing patients with a mental health disorder that compared wait-list, usual care, or placebo interventions with wait-list or no-treatment . DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Titles, abstracts, and full texts were reviewed for eligibility. Review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias using Cochrane's risk of bias tool. GRADE was used to assess the quality of the evidence. We contacted researchers working in the field to ask for data from additional published and unpublished trials. A pre-planned decision hierarchy was used to select one benefit and one harm outcome from each trial. For the assessment of benefits, we summarised continuous data as standardised mean differences (SMDs) and dichotomous data as risk ratios (RRs). We used risk differences (RDs) for the assessment of adverse events. We used random-effects models for all statistical analyses. We used subgroup analysis to explore potential causes for heterogeneity (e.g. type of placebo) and sensitivity analyses to explore the robustness of the primary analyses (e.g. fixed-effect model). MAIN RESULTS: We included 96 randomised trials (4200 participants), ranging from 8 to 393 participants in each trial. 83 trials (3614 participants) provided usable data. The trials included 15 different mental health disorders, the most common being anxiety (25 trials), depression (16 trials), and sleep-wake disorders (11 trials). All 96 trials were assessed as high risk of bias partly because of the inability to blind participants and personnel in trials with two control interventions. The quality of evidence was rated low to very low, mostly due to risk of bias, imprecision in estimates, and heterogeneity. Only one trial compared wait-list versus no-treatment directly but the authors were not able to provide us with any usable data on the comparison. Five trials compared usual care versus wait-list or no-treatment and found a SMD -0.33 (95% CI -0.83 to 0.16, I² = 86%, 523 participants) on benefits. The difference between all placebo interventions combined versus wait-list or no-treatment was SMD -0.37 (95% CI -0.49 to -0.25, I² = 41%, 65 trials, 2446 participants) on benefits. There was evidence of some asymmetry in the funnel plot (Egger's test P value of 0.087). Almost all the trials were small. Subgroup analysis found a moderate effect in favour of psychological placebos SMD -0.49 (95% CI -0.64 to -0.30; I² = 53%, 39 trials, 1656 participants). The effect of pharmacological placebos versus wait-list or no-treatment on benefits was SMD -0.14 (95% CI -0.39 to 0.11, 9 trials, 279 participants) and the effect of physical placebos was SMD -0.21 (95% CI -0.35 to -0.08, I² = 0%, 17 trials, 896 participants). We found large variations in effect sizes in the psychological and pharmacological placebo comparisons. For specific mental health disorders, we found significant differences in favour of all placebos for sleep-wake disorders, major depressive disorder, and anxiety disorders, but the analyses were imprecise due to sparse data. We found no significant differences in harms for any of the comparisons but the analyses suffered from sparse data. When using a fixed-effect model in a sensitivity analysis on the comparison for usual care versus wait-list and no-treatment, the results were significant with an SMD of -0.46 (95 % CI -0.64 to -0.28). We reported an alternative risk of bias model where we excluded the blinding domains seeing how issues with blinding may be seen as part of the review investigation itself. However, this did not markedly change the overall risk of bias profile as most of the trials still included one or more unclear bias domains. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found marked variations in effects between placebo versus no-treatment and wait-list and between subtypes of placebo with the same comparisons. Almost all the trials were small with considerable methodological and clinical variability in factors such as mental health population, contents of the included control interventions, and outcome domains. All trials were assessed as high risk of bias and the evidence quality was low to very low. When researchers decide to use placebos or usual care control interventions in trials with people with mental health disorders it will often lead to lower estimated effects of the experimental intervention than when using wait-list or no-treatment controls. The choice of a control intervention therefore has considerable impact on how effective a mental health treatment appears to be. Methodological guideline development is needed to reach a consensus on future standards for the design and reporting of control interventions in mental health intervention research.

Psychotherapies for borderline personality disorder: a focused systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: A recently updated Cochrane review supports the efficacy of psychotherapy for borderline personality disorder (BPD). AIMS: To evaluate the effects of standalone and add-on psychotherapeutic treatments more concisely. METHOD: We applied the same methods as the 2020 Cochrane review, but focused on adult samples and comparisons of active treatments and unspecific control conditions. Standalone treatments (i.e. necessarily including individual psychotherapy as either the sole or one of several treatment components) and add-on interventions (i.e. complementing any ongoing individual BPD treatment) were analysed separately. Primary outcomes were BPD severity, self-harm, suicide-related outcomes and psychosocial functioning. Secondary outcomes were remaining BPD diagnostic criteria, depression and attrition. RESULTS: Thirty-one randomised controlled trials totalling 1870 participants were identified. Among standalone treatments, statistically significant effects of low overall certainty were observed for dialectical behaviour therapy (self-harm: standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.54, P = 0.006; psychosocial functioning: SMD -0.51, P = 0.01) and mentalisation-based treatment (self-harm: risk ratio 0.51, P < 0.0007; suicide-related outcomes: risk ratio 0.10, P < 0.0001). For adjunctive interventions, moderate-quality evidence of beneficial effects was observed for DBT skills training (BPD severity: SMD -0.66, P = 0.002; psychosocial functioning: SMD -0.45, P = 0.002), and statistically significant low-certainty evidence was observed for the emotion regulation group (BPD severity: mean difference -8.49, P < 0.00001), manual-assisted cognitive therapy (self-harm: mean difference -3.03, P = 0.03; suicide-related outcomes: SMD -0.96, P = 0.005) and the systems training for emotional predictability and problem-solving (BPD severity: SMD -0.48, P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: There is reasonable evidence to conclude that psychotherapeutic interventions are helpful for individuals with BPD. Replication studies are needed to enhance the certainty of findings.