实验室评估的不信任在边缘型人格障碍:荟萃分析回顾。

Yağızcan Kurt, Megan Walker, Patrick Luyten, Peter Fonagy
{"title":"实验室评估的不信任在边缘型人格障碍:荟萃分析回顾。","authors":"Yağızcan Kurt, Megan Walker, Patrick Luyten, Peter Fonagy","doi":"10.1037/per0000739","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Although a recent systematic review examined the relationship between mistrust and borderline personality disorder (BPD; Preti et al., 2023), it did not statistically quantify the strength of this association. This highlights the need for a meta-analytic review of mistrust in BPD. To address this gap, we conducted a meta-analysis comparing laboratory-based assessments of mistrust between individuals with BPD and control groups. This meta-analysis was preregistered with International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42023479031). The final database search was conducted on October 17, 2024, across Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science to identify relevant studies. We included studies published in English or translated into English that employed valid, reliable laboratory-based measures of mistrust and psychometrically sound tools for assessing BPD symptoms or features. A three-level meta-analytic model was used to assess mistrust differences between BPD and control groups. The risk of bias in the included records was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklists. Our search yielded 1,717 reports, of which 26 met the inclusion criteria (<i>N</i> = 3,716). Based on 70 effect sizes from these reports, the meta-analysis indicated a small-to-moderate effect size (<i>g</i> = 0.44, 95% confidence interval = [0.27, 0.61], <i>p</i> < .001), demonstrating that individuals with BPD exhibited significantly higher levels of mistrust compared to controls. Subgroup analyses identified the mistrust paradigm as a statistically significant moderator. These results underscore the significant role of mistrust in BPD. We suggest that assessing mistrust and fostering interpersonal trust during treatment could lead to more effective interventions for BPD. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":74420,"journal":{"name":"Personality disorders","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Laboratory-assessed mistrust in borderline personality disorder: A meta-analytic review.\",\"authors\":\"Yağızcan Kurt, Megan Walker, Patrick Luyten, Peter Fonagy\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/per0000739\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Although a recent systematic review examined the relationship between mistrust and borderline personality disorder (BPD; Preti et al., 2023), it did not statistically quantify the strength of this association. This highlights the need for a meta-analytic review of mistrust in BPD. To address this gap, we conducted a meta-analysis comparing laboratory-based assessments of mistrust between individuals with BPD and control groups. This meta-analysis was preregistered with International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42023479031). The final database search was conducted on October 17, 2024, across Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science to identify relevant studies. We included studies published in English or translated into English that employed valid, reliable laboratory-based measures of mistrust and psychometrically sound tools for assessing BPD symptoms or features. A three-level meta-analytic model was used to assess mistrust differences between BPD and control groups. The risk of bias in the included records was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklists. Our search yielded 1,717 reports, of which 26 met the inclusion criteria (<i>N</i> = 3,716). Based on 70 effect sizes from these reports, the meta-analysis indicated a small-to-moderate effect size (<i>g</i> = 0.44, 95% confidence interval = [0.27, 0.61], <i>p</i> < .001), demonstrating that individuals with BPD exhibited significantly higher levels of mistrust compared to controls. Subgroup analyses identified the mistrust paradigm as a statistically significant moderator. These results underscore the significant role of mistrust in BPD. We suggest that assessing mistrust and fostering interpersonal trust during treatment could lead to more effective interventions for BPD. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74420,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Personality disorders\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Personality disorders\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000739\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Personality disorders","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000739","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

尽管最近的一项系统综述研究了不信任与边缘型人格障碍(BPD;Preti et al., 2023),它没有统计量化这种关联的强度。这突出了对BPD中不信任进行元分析审查的必要性。为了解决这一差距,我们进行了一项荟萃分析,比较了BPD患者和对照组之间基于实验室的不信任评估。该荟萃分析已在国际前瞻性系统评价注册(CRD42023479031)预注册。最后的数据库检索于2024年10月17日在Embase、MEDLINE、PsycINFO、Scopus和Web of Science进行,以确定相关研究。我们纳入了用英语发表或翻译成英语的研究,这些研究采用了有效、可靠的基于实验室的不信任测量和心理测量学上健全的工具来评估BPD的症状或特征。采用三层次元分析模型评估BPD组与对照组之间的不信任差异。使用乔安娜布里格斯研究所关键评估清单评估纳入记录的偏倚风险。我们检索了1717份报告,其中26份符合纳入标准(N = 3716)。基于这些报告的70个效应量,meta分析显示了一个小到中等的效应量(g = 0.44, 95%置信区间= [0.27,0.61],p < .001),表明BPD患者与对照组相比,表现出明显更高的不信任水平。分组分析发现,不信任范式在统计上具有显著的调节作用。这些结果强调了不信任在BPD中的重要作用。我们建议在治疗过程中评估不信任和培养人际信任可能会导致对BPD更有效的干预。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Laboratory-assessed mistrust in borderline personality disorder: A meta-analytic review.

Although a recent systematic review examined the relationship between mistrust and borderline personality disorder (BPD; Preti et al., 2023), it did not statistically quantify the strength of this association. This highlights the need for a meta-analytic review of mistrust in BPD. To address this gap, we conducted a meta-analysis comparing laboratory-based assessments of mistrust between individuals with BPD and control groups. This meta-analysis was preregistered with International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42023479031). The final database search was conducted on October 17, 2024, across Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science to identify relevant studies. We included studies published in English or translated into English that employed valid, reliable laboratory-based measures of mistrust and psychometrically sound tools for assessing BPD symptoms or features. A three-level meta-analytic model was used to assess mistrust differences between BPD and control groups. The risk of bias in the included records was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklists. Our search yielded 1,717 reports, of which 26 met the inclusion criteria (N = 3,716). Based on 70 effect sizes from these reports, the meta-analysis indicated a small-to-moderate effect size (g = 0.44, 95% confidence interval = [0.27, 0.61], p < .001), demonstrating that individuals with BPD exhibited significantly higher levels of mistrust compared to controls. Subgroup analyses identified the mistrust paradigm as a statistically significant moderator. These results underscore the significant role of mistrust in BPD. We suggest that assessing mistrust and fostering interpersonal trust during treatment could lead to more effective interventions for BPD. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信