Review: psychodynamic therapy and cognitive behavioural therapy are effective in the treatment of personality disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Leichsenring F, Leibing E. The effectiveness of psychodynamic therapy and cognitive behavior therapy in the treatment of personality disorders: a meta-analysis. Am J Psychiatry 2003;160:1223–32.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q Are psychodynamic therapy and cognitive behaviour therapy effective treatments for people with personality disorders? ### ![Graphic][5] Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis. ### ![Graphic][6] Data sources: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Current Contents between 1974 and 2001. ### ![Graphic][7] Study selection and analysis: Eligible studies diagnosed personality disorders using standardised methods, assessed outcomes using reliable validated instruments, and presented data in a way that permitted calculation of within-group effect sizes or assessment of recovery rates. Details of data extraction were not reported. Longest post-treatment follow up was used to assess long term outcomes. Within-group effect sizes were calculated using Cohen’s d. In addition to overall effect sizes, individual effect sizes were calculated for measures that were more specific to personality disorders. Effect sizes were calculated … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DAmerican%2BJournal%2Bof%2BPsychiatry%26rft.stitle%253DAm.%2BJ.%2BPsychiatry%26rft.aulast%253DLeichsenring%26rft.auinit1%253DF.%26rft.volume%253D160%26rft.issue%253D7%26rft.spage%253D1223%26rft.epage%253D1232%26rft.atitle%253DThe%2BEffectiveness%2Bof%2BPsychodynamic%2BTherapy%2Band%2BCognitive%2BBehavior%2BTherapy%2Bin%2Bthe%2BTreatment%2Bof%2BPersonality%2BDisorders%253A%2BA%2BMeta-Analysis%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1176%252Fappi.ajp.160.7.1223%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F12832233%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1176/appi.ajp.160.7.1223&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=12832233&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmental%2F7%2F1%2F16.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000183957200003&link_type=ISI [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".