Abstract
Introduction The heterogeneity in people with 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 patient. The objective of this is to improve the quality of care and the individual outcomes. Thus, the aim of the current reviews is to investigate potential predictors and moderating patient characteristics on treatment outcomes for patients with BPD.
Methods and analysis Our primary meta-analytic method will be the one-stage random-effects approach. To identify predictors, we will be using the one-stage model that accounts for interaction between covariates and treatment allocation. Heterogeneity in case-mix will be assessed using 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.
Protocol registration The IPD reviews, described in this study protocol, are registered with the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (registration number: awaiting)
Strengths and limitations of this protocol
These IPD-reviews are the first to systematically review and investigate psychotherapy for people with borderline personality disorder using individual participant data.
The IPD-reviews will provide information on moderators and predictors in patients with borderline personality disorder that predict who may benefit most from which type of specialised psychotherapy.
Individual participant data allows for a more precise risk of bias assessment and decreases the amount of unclear risk of bias in many of the included trials.
A limitation to IPD-reviews in general is that data retrieval can be challenging.
The IPD-reviews are limited to the outcomes and patient characteristics that have been assessed in the included trials.
Competing Interest Statement
Ole Jakob Storebø: No competing interest. Johanne Pereira Ribeiro: No competing interests. Mickey Kongerslev: Certified specialist in psychotherapy from the Danish Psychological Association. He has received training in group analysis, CBT, and MBT. Jutta M Stoffers-Winterling: Board-certified psychologist (CBT), who has worked on a Dialectical Behaviour Therapy (DBT) ward, and attended courses on DBT and Schema-focused therapy (SFT) Mie Sedoc Jørgensen: Associated with the M-GAB trial, trained in Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) and psychodynamic therapy. Klaus Lieb: Board-certified cognitive behaviour therapist with a special interest in schema therapy. He has been involved in trials investigating inpatient DBT (Bohus 2004); and inpatient SFT (Reiss 2014) but was not involved in the evaluation of these trials. Anthony Bateman: Receives honoraria for training in Mentalization Based Treatment (MBT) for Borderline Personality Disorder. Nicolas Derain: No competing interests. Richard Kirubakaran: No competing interests. Eirini Karyotaki: No competing interests. Pim Cuijpers: No competing interests. Erik Simonsen: PI of the M-GAB trial, trained in group psychoanalysis.
Funding Statement
This protocol was funded internally by Region Zealand Psychiatry, Region Zealand, Denmark.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The statistical analyses will be conducted on anonymised data that have already been approved by the respective ethical committees originally assessing the included trials.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
This is a protocol of three systematic reviews which does not contain any data to available.
