Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31827801›Full record

ArticleBorderline personality disorder and emotion dysregulation2019

Borderline personality disorder diagnosis in a new key.

Abby L Mulay, Mark H Waugh, J Parks Fillauer, Donna S Bender, Anthony Bram, Nicole M Cain, Eve Caligor, Miriam K Forbes, Laurel B Goodrich, Jan H Kamphuis and 11 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Borderline personality disorder and emotion dysregulation, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
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

21 authors.

Abby L Mulay *1Medical University of South Carolina, 29C Leinbach Drive, Charleston, SC 29407 USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4521-9044
Mark H Waugh *2Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) & University of Tennessee Knoxville, Knoxville, TN 37996 USA.
J Parks Fillauer *3University of Tennessee Knoxville, Knoxville, TN 37996 USA.
Donna S Bender4Tulane University, 6823 St. Charles Ave., Bldg. 92, New Orleans, LA 70118 USA.
Anthony BramLexington, USA.
Nicole M Cain6Rutgers University, Graduate School of Applied and Professional Psychology, 152 Frelinghuysen Rd, Piscataway, NJ 08854-8020 USA.
Eve Caligor7Columbia University, 1501 Riverside Drive, New York, NY 10032 USA.
Miriam K Forbes8Macquarie University, Balaclava Rd., Macquarie Park, NSW 2109 Australia.
Laurel B GoodrichKnoxville, USA.
Jan H Kamphuis10University of Amsterdam (UvA), Nieuwe Achtergracht, 129B, 1001 NK Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Jared W Keeley11Virginia Commonwealth University, 806 West Franklin Street, Box 842018, Richmond, VA 23284-2018 USA.
Robert F Krueger12University of Minnesota, 101 Pleasant St SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455 USA.
John E Kurtz13Villanova University, 800 Lancaster Avenue, Villanova, PA 19085 USA.
Peter Jacobsson14Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Katie C Lewis15Austen Riggs Center, 25 Main Street, P.O. Box 962, Stockbridge, MA 01262 USA.
Gina M P Rossi16Department of Psychology, Personality and Psychopathology Research group Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussels, Belgium.
Jeremy M Ridenour15Austen Riggs Center, 25 Main Street, P.O. Box 962, Stockbridge, MA 01262 USA.
Michael Roche17Penn State Altoona, 3000 Ivyside Park, Altoona, PA 16601 USA.
Martin Sellbom18University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin, 9054 New Zealand.
Carla Sharp19University of Houston, 3695 Cullen Boulevard Room 126, Houston, TX 77204-5022 USA.
Andrew E Skodol20University of Arizona, 1501 N. Campbell Avenue, PO Box 245017, Tucson, AZ 85724 USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConceptualizations of personality disorders (PD) are increasingly moving towards dimensional approaches. The definition and assessment of borderline personality disorder (BPD) in regard to changes in nosology are of great importance to theory and practice as well as consumers. We studied empirical connections between the traditional DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for BPD and Criteria A and B of the Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD).

methodRaters of varied professional backgrounds possessing substantial knowledge of PDs (

resultsInter-rater reliability analyses showed generally robust agreement. The AMPD profile for BPD criteria rated by individual BPD criteria was not isomorphic with whole-person ratings of BPD, although they were highly correlated. Various AMPD profiles for BPD were generated from theoretically relevant but differing configurations of BPD criteria. These AMPD profiles were highly correlated and showed meaningful divergence from non-BPD DSM-5-III algorithms and other PD prototypes.

conclusionsResults show that traditional DSM BPD diagnosis reflects a common core of PD severity, largely composed of LPFS and the pathological traits of anxiousness, depressively, emotional lability, and impulsivity. Results confirm the traditional DSM criterion-based BPD diagnosis can be reliably cross-walked with the full AMPD scheme, and both approaches share substantial construct overlap. This relative equivalence suggests the vast clinical and research literatures associated with BPD may be brought forward with DSM-5-III diagnosis of BPD.

Indexed as

Alternative model for personality disordersBorderline personality disorderDSM-5Personality assessmentPersonality disorder

Identifiers

PMID31827801
PMCPMC6886204

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.