Article Text

Individual participant data systematic reviews with meta-analyses of psychotherapies for borderline personality disorder
  1. Ole Jakob Storebø1,2,
  2. Johanne Pereira Ribeiro1,
  3. Mickey T Kongerslev3,
  4. Jutta Stoffers-Winterling4,
  5. Mie Sedoc Jørgensen1,
  6. Klaus Lieb5,
  7. Anthony Bateman6,7,
  8. Richard Kirubakaran8,
  9. Nicolas Dérian9,
  10. Eirini Karyotaki10,
  11. Pim Cuijpers10,
  12. Erik Simonsen1
  1. 1Psychiatric Department, Region Zealand Psychiatry, Psychiatric Research Unit, Slagelse, Denmark
  2. 2Department of Psychology, University of Southern Denmark Faculty of Health Sciences, Odense, Denmark
  3. 3Psychiatric Services, Region Zealand Psychiatry, Roskilde, Denmark
  4. 4Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Medical Centre of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Rheinland-Pfalz, Germany
  5. 5Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center Mainz, Mainz, Germany
  6. 6Royal Free and University College Medical School, London, UK
  7. 7Halliwick Day Unit, St. Ann's Hospital, London, UK
  8. 8Prof BV Moses Centre for Evidence-Informed Healthcare and Health Policy, Vellore, India
  9. 9Data and Development Support Unit, Region Zealand, Køge, Denmark
  10. 10Department of Clinical Psychology, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  1. Correspondence to Professor Ole Jakob Storebø; ojst{at}


Introduction The heterogeneity in people with borderline personality disorder (BPD) and the range of specialised psychotherapies means that people with certain BPD characteristics might benefit more or less from different types of psychotherapy. Identifying moderating characteristics of individuals is a key to refine and tailor standard treatments so they match the specificities of the individual participant. The objective of this is to improve the quality of care and the individual outcomes. We will do so by performing three systematic reviews with meta-analyses of individual participant data (IPD). The aim of these reviews is to investigate potential predictors and moderating patient characteristics on treatment outcomes for patients with BPD.

Methods and analysis We performed comprehensive searches in 22 databases and trial registries up to October 6th 2020. These will be updated with a top-up search up until June 2021. Our primary meta-analytic method will be the one-stage random-effects approach. To identify predictors, we will use the one-stage model that accounts for interaction between covariates and treatment allocation. Heterogeneity in case-mix will be assessed with a membership model based on a multinomial logistic regression where study membership is the outcome. A random-effects meta-analysis is chosen to account for expected levels of heterogeneity.

Ethics and dissemination The statistical analyses will be conducted on anonymised data that have already been approved by the respective ethical committees that originally assessed the included trials. The three IPD reviews will be published in high-impact factor journals and their results will be presented at international conferences and national seminars.

PROSPERO registration number CRD42021210688.

  • personality disorders
  • adult psychiatry
  • mental health

Data availability statement

Data sharing not applicable as no datasets generated and/or analysed for this study.

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Data availability statement

Data sharing not applicable as no datasets generated and/or analysed for this study.

View Full Text

Supplementary materials

  • Supplementary Data

    This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.


  • Twitter @KaryotakiEirini

  • Contributors AB, MTK, MSJ, ES, EK, and OJS developed the idea for the protocol. JPR, MSJ, JS-W, KL, AB, MTK, and OJS have drafted the first version of the manuscript. RK, ND, PC, and EK have edited the methodological and statistical section of the manuscript. All authors have critically reviewed and revised the manuscript.

  • Funding The Psychiatric Research Unit in Region Zealand supported this project with part-time salary for JPR, ES and OJS during the writing of the manuscript.

  • Competing interests OJS: trained in child and adolescent psychoanalytic play therapy, trained in group psychoanalysis and associated with the M-GAB trial. MTK: trained in mentalisation-based and psychodynamic psychotherapy, and conducts research and training in mentalisation-based therapy; has written books on mentalisation-based therapy. JS-W: board-certified behaviour therapist, trained in dialectical behaviour therapy. MSJ: associated with the M-GAB trial, trained in dialectical behaviour therapy and psychodynamic therapy. KL: board‐certified cognitive behaviour therapist with a special interest in schema therapy. KL has been involved in trials investigating inpatient dialectical behaviour therapy (Bohus, 2004); and inpatient schema-focused therapy (Reiss, 2014). AB: receives honoraria for training in mentalisation-based treatment for borderline personality disorder. ES: principal investigator of the M-GAB trial, trained in group psychoanalysis.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.