SynthesisPloS one2023
Evaluation of international guidance for the community treatment of 'personality disorders': A systematic review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Relationship Between Early Maladaptive Schemas and Cluster C Personality Disorder Traits: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Current psychiatry reports · 2023Pooled it
- Cluster B personality disorders and psychotropic medications: a focused analysis of trends and patterns across sex and age groups.Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology · 2025Article
- Borderline personality disorder Athens study: a quasi-experimental pragmatic trial for the assessment of a public, psychodynamic, stepped care service for borderline personality disorder patients.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
- Psychotropic medication use pre and post-diagnosis of cluster B personality disorder: a Quebec's health services register cohort.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGuidelines for the treatment and management of 'personality disorders' have been introduced to provide guidance on best practice based on evidence and views of key stakeholders. However, guidance varies and there is yet to be an overall, internationally recognised consensus on the best mental health care for people with 'personality disorders'.
aimsWe aimed to identify and synthesise recommendations made by different mental health organisations from across the world on community treatment for people with 'personality disorders'.
methodsThis systematic review consisted of three stages: 1. systematic literature and guideline search, 2. quality appraisal, and 3. data synthesis. We combined a search strategy involving both systematic searching of bibliographic databases and supplementary search methods of grey literature. Key informants were also contacted to further identify relevant guidelines. Codebook thematic analysis was then conducted. The quality of all included guidelines was assessed and considered alongside results.
resultsAfter synthesising 29 guidelines from 11 countries and 1 international organisation, we identified four main domains, with a total of 27 themes. Important key principles on which there was consensus included continuity of care, equity of access, accessibility of services, availability of specialist care, taking a whole systems approach, trauma informed approaches, and collaborative care planning and decision making.
conclusionsExisting international guidelines shared consensus on a set of principles for the community treatment of 'personality disorders'. However, half of the guidelines were of lower methodological quality, with many recommendations not backed by evidence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.