Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31410586›Full record

ReviewCurrent psychiatry reports2019

A Brief but Comprehensive Review of Research on the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders.

Johannes Zimmermann, André Kerber, Katharina Rek, Christopher J Hopwood, Robert F Krueger

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current psychiatry reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 105 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
105citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

105 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

45 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Johannes ZimmermannDepartment of Psychology, University of Kassel, Holländische Str. 36-38, 34127, Kassel, Germany. jz@uni-kassel.de.
André KerberFreie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Katharina RekMax-Planck-Institut für Psychiatrie, Munich, Germany.
Christopher J HopwoodUniversity of California, Davis, CA, USA.
Robert F KruegerUniversity of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewBoth the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) and the chapter on personality disorders (PD) in the recent version of ICD-11 embody a shift from a categorical to a dimensional paradigm for the classification of PD. We describe these new models, summarize available measures, and provide a comprehensive review of research on the AMPD. RECENT

findingsA total of 237 publications on severity (criterion A) and maladaptive traits (criterion B) of the AMPD indicate (a) acceptable interrater reliability, (b) largely consistent latent structures, (c) substantial convergence with a range of theoretically and clinically relevant external measures, and (d) some evidence for incremental validity when controlling for categorical PD diagnoses. However, measures of criterion A and B are highly correlated, which poses conceptual challenges. The AMPD has stimulated extensive research with promising findings. We highlight open questions and provide recommendations for future research.

Indexed as

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental DisordersHumansInternational Classification of DiseasesPersonalityPersonality DisordersReproducibility of ResultsDimensional modelsDSM-5ICD-11Personality disordersReliabilityValidity

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.