IMPORTANCE Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a debilitating condition, but several psychotherapies are considered effective.OBJECTIVE To conduct an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials to assess the efficacy of psychotherapies for BPD populations.DATA SOURCES Search terms were combined for borderline personality and randomized trials in PubMed, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (from database inception to November 2015), as well as the reference lists of earlier meta-analyses.STUDY SELECTION Included were randomized clinical trials of adults with diagnosed BPD randomized to psychotherapy exclusively or to a control intervention. Study selection differentiated stand-alone designs (in which an independent psychotherapy was compared with control interventions) from add-on designs (in which an experimental intervention added to usual treatment was compared with usual treatment alone). DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESISData extraction coded characteristics of trials, participants, and interventions and assessed risk of bias using 4 domains of the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias tool (independent extraction by 2 assessors). Outcomes were pooled using a random-effects model. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses were conducted.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Standardized mean differences (Hedges g) were calculated using all outcomes reported in the trials for borderline symptoms, self-harm, suicide, health service use, and general psychopathology at posttest and follow-up. Differential treatment retention at posttest was analyzed, reporting odds ratios.RESULTS Thirty-three trials (2256 participants) were included. For borderline-relevant outcomes combined (symptoms, self-harm, and suicide) at posttest, the investigated psychotherapies were moderately more effective than control interventions in stand-alone designs (g = 0.32; 95% CI, 0.14-0.51) and add-on designs (g = 0.40; 95% CI, 0.15-0.65). Results were similar for other outcomes, including stand-alone designs: self-harm (g = 0.32; 95% CI, 0.09-0.54), suicide (g = 0.44; 95% CI, 0.15-0.74), health service use (g = 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22-0.58), and general psychopathology (g=0.32; 95% CI, 0.09-0.55), with no differences between design types. There were no significant differences in the odds ratios for treatment retention (1.32; 95% CI, 0.87-2.00 for stand-alone designs and 1.01; 95% CI, 0.55-1.87 for add-on designs). Thirteen trials reported borderline-relevant outcomes at follow-up (g = 0.45; 95% CI, 0.15-0.75). Dialectical behavior therapy (g=0.34; 95% CI, 0.15-0.53) and psychodynamic approaches (g=0.41; 95% CI, 0.12-0.69) were the only types of psychotherapies more effective than control interventions. Risk of bias was a significant moderator in subgroup and meta-regression analyses (slope β = −0.16; 95% CI, −0.29 to −0.03; P = .02). Publication bias was persistent, particularly for follow-up.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Psychotherapies, most notably dialectical behavior therapy and psychodynamic ...

We report a meta-analysis of virtual reality (VR) interventions for anxiety and depression outcomes, as well as treatment attrition. We included randomized controlled trials comparing VR interventions, alone or in combination, to control conditions or other active psychological interventions. Effects sizes (Hedges’ g) for anxiety and depression outcomes, as post-test and follow-up, were pooled with a random-effects model. Drop-outs were compared using odds ratio (OR) with a Mantel-Haenszel model. We included 39 trials (52 comparisons). Trial risk of bias was unclear for most domains, and high for incomplete outcome data. VR-based therapies were more effective than control at post-test for anxiety, g = 0.79, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.02, and depression, g = 0.73, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.21, but not for treatment attrition, OR = 1.34, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.89. Heterogeneity was high and there was consistent evidence of small study effects. There were no significant differences between VR-based and other active interventions. VR interventions outperformed control conditions for anxiety and depression but did not improve treatment drop-out. High heterogeneity, potential publication bias, predominant use of waitlist controls, and high or uncertain risk of bias of most trials question the reliability of these effects.

ObjectiveRational emotive behavior therapy (REBT), introduced by Albert Ellis in the late 1950s, is one of the main pillars of cognitive‐behavioral therapy. Existing reviews on REBT are overdue by 10 years or more. We aimed to summarize the effectiveness and efficacy of REBT since its beginnings and investigate the alleged mechanisms of change.MethodSystematic search identified 84 articles, out of which 68 provided data for between‐group analyses and 39 for within‐group analyses.ResultsWe found a medium effect size of REBT compared to other interventions on outcomes (d = 0.58) and on irrational beliefs (d = 0.70), at posttest. For the within‐group analyses, we obtained medium effects for both outcomes (d = 0.56) and irrational beliefs (d = 0.61). Several significant moderators emerged.ConclusionREBT is a sound psychological intervention. Directions for future studies are outlined, stemming from the limitations of existing ones.

No abstract