MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105291233 · doi:10.4088/jcp.08r04526gre

Effectiveness of Pharmacotherapy for Severe Personality Disorders

2009· review· en· W2105291233 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Clinical Psychiatry · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Disorders and Psychopathology
Canadian institutionsCentre for Movement Disorders
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMoodBorderline personality disorderRandomized controlled trialPersonality disordersClinical psychologyPsychologyAngerAnxietyPsychiatryPersonalityPlaceboMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: There has been little systematic attempt to validate current pharmacologic treatment algorithms and guidelines for severe personality disorder. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated studies on the effectiveness of psychoactive drugs on specific symptom domains for borderline and/or schizotypal personality disorder. DATA SOURCES: The literature was searched for placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials (PC-RCTs) on the effectiveness of psychopharmacologic drugs in personality disorder patients. The PubMed, PsychINFO, PiCarta, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases were searched using the search terms borderline personality, schizotypal personality, personality disorder, cluster A, cluster B, treatment, drug, pharmacotherapy, antipsychotic, antidepressant, mood stabilizer, effect, outcome, review, and meta-analysis for studies published between 1980 and December 2007, and references were identified from bibliographies from articles and books. STUDY SELECTION: Placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials on the efficacy of antipsychotics, antidepressants, and mood stabilizers regarding cognitive-perceptual symptoms, impulsive-behavioral dyscontrol, and affective dysregulation (with subdomains depressed mood, anxiety, anger, and mood lability) were selected in patients with well defined borderline and/or schizotypal personality disorder. Studies whose primary emphasis was on the treatment of Axis I disorders were excluded. Meta-analyses were conducted using 21 retrieved studies. RESULTS: Antipsychotics have a moderate effect on cognitive-perceptual symptoms (5 PC-RCTs; standardized mean difference [SMD]=0.56) and a moderate to large effect on anger (4 PC-RCTs; SMD=0.69). Antidepressants have no significant effect on impulsive-behavioral dyscontrol and depressed mood. They have a small but significant effect on anxiety (5 PC-RCTs; SMD=0.30) and anger (4 PC-RCTs; SMD=0.34). Mood stabilizers have a very large effect on impulsive-behavioral dyscontrol (6 PC-RCTs; SMD=1.51) and anger (7 PC-RCTs; SMD=1.33), a large effect on anxiety (3 PC-RCTs; SMD=0.80), but a moderate effect on depressed mood (5 PC-RCTs; SMD=0.55). Mood lability as an outcome measure was seldomly assessed. Mood stabilizers have a more pronounced effect on global functioning (3 PC-RCTs; SMD=0.79) than have antipsychotics (5 PC-RCTs; SMD=0.37). The effect of antidepressants on global functioning is negligible. CONCLUSIONS: Drug therapy tailored to well-defined symptom domains can have a beneficial effect on patients with severe personality disorder. The findings from this study raise questions on current pharmacologic algorithms.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.961
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.116
GPT teacher head0.526
Teacher spread0.409 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it