The course of borderline personality disorder from adolescence to early adulthood: A 5-year follow-up study.

BACKGROUND: Studies of the medium- to long-term clinical and functional course for treatment-seeking adolescents with borderline personality disorder (BPD) are lacking. This study aims to outline the psychopathological and functional status of participants, five years after being diagnosed with BPD during adolescence. METHODS: Participants were originally enrolled in a randomized clinical trial that compared mentalization-based group treatment with treatment as usual for adolescents with BPD. Semi-structured interview assessments at five-year follow-up included the Schedules for Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry and the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 Personality Disorders. Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), alcohol, substance and tobacco use, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), complex PTSD, and general functioning were assessed using self-report instruments. RESULTS: 97 of the original sample of 111 participants (87%) participated. They were aged 19-23 years. The most prevalent disorders were ADHD (59%), any personality disorder (47%) of which half continued to meet criteria for BPD (24%), anxiety disorders (37%), depressive disorders (32%), PTSD or complex PTSD (20%), schizophrenia (16%), and eating disorders (13%). Only 16% did not meet criteria for any mental disorder. Approximately half of the sample were in psychological and/or psychopharmacological treatment at the time of follow-up. Their general functioning remained impaired, with 36% not engaged in education, employment or training (NEET), which is nearly four times the rate of NEET in the same age group in the general population. CONCLUSIONS: Although stability of the categorical BPD diagnosis is modest, adolescents meeting diagnostic criteria for BPD show a broad range of poor outcomes at five-year follow-up. BPD appears to be a marker of general maladjustment during adolescence and a harbinger of severe problems during the transition to young adulthood. Early intervention programs for adolescents diagnosed with BPD should focus upon a broad range of functional and psychopathological outcomes, especially social and vocational support, rather than the narrow BPD diagnosis.

Collaborative assessment as an intervention in the treatment of mental Illness: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Three meta-analyses suggested that the psychological assessment as a therapeutic intervention approach might have therapeutic effects but had unspecific inclusion criteria. METHODS: We searched four databases for RCTs that reported on the use of psychological assessment as an intervention. Two reviewers independently selected papers, extracted data, and assessed study quality.We conducted and reported the systematic review following the PRISMA statement. We assessed the Risk of bias in included studies using the Risk of Bias tool and graded the strength of the evidence with GRADE. RESULTS: We included two RCTs: The first study investigated Therapeutic Assessment (TA) combined with Manual-Assisted Cognitive Behavior Therapy (MACT) compared with MACT only in 16 outpatients with personality disorders. The trial found among completers (n = 7) no difference in borderline symptomatology but a possible difference regarding suicidality favoring MACT + TA. The trial did not provide any outcomes relating to readiness for treatment. The other trial investigated TA compared with a Goal-focused Pretreatment Intervention in a sample of 74 outpatients with personality disorders. The results found no intervention effects on symptomatology but suggested that TA might improve patient expectancy for future treatment among completers of the intervention. Both trials were judged at a high risk of bias and with very low certainty of evidence. DISCUSSION: We found no support for the clinical effect of psychological assessment as a therapeutic intervention due to the high risk of bias and low certainty of the evidence.

Attachment Problems and Mentalizing Capacity Relate to Parent-Child Informant Discrepancies in Female Adolescents with Borderline Personality Disorder.

Parent-child informant discrepancies on psychopathology provide important knowledge on the parent-child relationship and the child's mental health, but mechanisms underlying parent-child informant discrepancies are largely unknown. Therefore, we investigated the relationship between attachment problems and mentalizing capacity and parent-child informant discrepancies on borderline personality disorder (BPD) severity, internalizing, and externalizing pathology in a clinical sample of 91 adolescent girls with BPD and their parents. Results showed that more attachment problems to parents and peers were related to adolescents reporting more severe BPD than parents. Adolescents who described more internalizing symptoms relative to parents, reported more parental attachment problems, but enhanced peer attachment, suggesting those adolescents who do not feel recognized by their parents might turn to their friends. When parents rated adolescents higher on externalizing behaviors, the adolescent reported more attachment problems to parents and lower mentalizing capacity, indicating that this sub-group of adolescents may reflect less about how their behavior affects others.

Methylphenidate for children and adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

BACKGROUND: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most commonly diagnosed and treated psychiatric disorders in childhood. Typically, children and adolescents with ADHD find it difficult to pay attention and they are hyperactive and impulsive. Methylphenidate is the psychostimulant most often prescribed, but the evidence on benefits and harms is uncertain. This is an update of our comprehensive systematic review on benefits and harms published in 2015. OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of methylphenidate for children and adolescents with ADHD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases and two trials registers up to March 2022. In addition, we checked reference lists and requested published and unpublished data from manufacturers of methylphenidate. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing methylphenidate versus placebo or no intervention in children and adolescents aged 18 years and younger with a diagnosis of ADHD. The search was not limited by publication year or language, but trial inclusion required that 75% or more of participants had a normal intellectual quotient (IQ > 70). We assessed two primary outcomes, ADHD symptoms and serious adverse events, and three secondary outcomes, adverse events considered non-serious, general behaviour, and quality of life. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently conducted data extraction and risk of bias assessment for each trial. Six review authors including two review authors from the original publication participated in the update in 2022. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Data from parallel-group trials and first-period data from cross-over trials formed the basis of our primary analyses. We undertook separate analyses using end-of-last period data from cross-over trials. We used Trial Sequential Analyses (TSA) to control for type I (5%) and type II (20%) errors, and we assessed and downgraded evidence according to the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 212 trials (16,302 participants randomised); 55 parallel-group trials (8104 participants randomised), and 156 cross-over trials (8033 participants randomised) as well as one trial with a parallel phase (114 participants randomised) and a cross-over phase (165 participants randomised). The mean age of participants was 9.8 years ranging from 3 to 18 years (two trials from 3 to 21 years). The male-female ratio was 3:1. Most trials were carried out in high-income countries, and 86/212 included trials (41%) were funded or partly funded by the pharmaceutical industry. Methylphenidate treatment duration ranged from 1 to 425 days, with a mean duration of 28.8 days. Trials compared methylphenidate with placebo (200 trials) and with no intervention (12 trials). Only 165/212 trials included usable data on one or more outcomes from 14,271 participants. Of the 212 trials, we assessed 191 at high risk of bias and 21 at low risk of bias. If, however, deblinding of methylphenidate due to typical adverse events is considered, then all 212 trials were at high risk of bias. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: methylphenidate versus placebo or no intervention may improve teacher-rated ADHD symptoms (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.88 to -0.61; I² = 38%; 21 trials; 1728 participants; very low-certainty evidence). This corresponds to a mean difference (MD) of -10.58 (95% CI -12.58 to -8.72) on the ADHD Rating Scale (ADHD-RS; range 0 to 72 points). The minimal clinically relevant difference is considered to be a change of 6.6 points on the ADHD-RS. Methylphenidate may not affect serious adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.67; I² = 0%; 26 trials, 3673 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The TSA-adjusted intervention effect was RR 0.91 (CI 0.31 to 2.68). SECONDARY OUTCOMES: methylphenidate may cause more adverse events considered non-serious versus placebo or no intervention (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.37; I² = 72%; 35 trials 5342 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The TSA-adjusted intervention effect was RR 1.22 (CI 1.08 to 1.43). Methylphenidate may improve teacher-rated general behaviour versus placebo (SMD -0.62, 95% CI -0.91 to -0.33; I² = 68%; 7 trials 792 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but may not affect quality of life (SMD 0.40, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.83; I² = 81%; 4 trials, 608 participants; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The majority of our conclusions from the 2015 version of this review still apply. Our updated meta-analyses suggest that methylphenidate versus placebo or no-intervention may improve teacher-rated ADHD symptoms and general behaviour in children and adolescents with ADHD. There may be no effects on serious adverse events and quality of life. Methylphenidate may be associated with an increased risk of adverse events considered non-serious, such as sleep problems and decreased appetite. However, the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes is very low and therefore the true magnitude of effects remain unclear. Due to the frequency of non-serious adverse events associated with methylphenidate, the blinding of participants and outcome assessors is particularly challenging. To accommodate this challenge, an active placebo should be sought and utilised. It may be difficult to find such a drug, but identifying a substance that could mimic the easily recognised adverse effects of methylphenidate would avert the unblinding that detrimentally affects current randomised trials. Future systematic reviews should investigate the subgroups of patients with ADHD that may benefit most and least from methylphenidate. This could be done with individual participant data to investigate predictors and modifiers like age, comorbidity, and ADHD subtypes.

Prevalence and incidence of personality disorders among children and adolescents in Danish mental health services: a nationwide register study.

A few epidemiological studies have examined personality disorders (PDs) among children and adolescents in secondary mental health services. This study aims to describe the prevalence and incidence of PDs among children and adolescents who have attended Danish child and adolescent psychiatric services (CAPS). Using register-based data, we studied all patients under the age of 18 years who were admitted to in- and outpatient CAPS (N = 115,121) in Denmark from 2007 to 2017. A total of 4952 patients were diagnosed with a PD during the study period. The mean prevalence was 859 patients per year, and the mean incidence was 274 patients per year, including an increased incidence and prevalence of borderline, anxious, and unspecified PDs over the decade. The number of patients diagnosed with PDs increased from 700 to 851 per year, but the proportion of patients with PDs compared to all psychiatric diagnoses decreased from 4.2% to 2.8% over the study period. The PD population had an older age (14.8 years vs. 11.3 years; p < 0.001), a higher likelihood of being female (74% vs. 44%; p < 0.001), and four times more contacts with the psychiatric emergency departments than other patients with a psychiatric diagnosis. Future studies should focus on (a) implementing further epidemiological studies in different countries; (b) tracking diagnostic practices to facilitate comparisons and provide feedback for training clinicians and raising awareness; and (c) estimating trajectories of PDs, including costs within the CAPS, to facilitate informed decision-making regarding the future organization and provision of services to these children, adolescents, and their families.

Psychotherapies for borderline personality disorder: a focused systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: A recently updated Cochrane review supports the efficacy of psychotherapy for borderline personality disorder (BPD). AIMS: To evaluate the effects of standalone and add-on psychotherapeutic treatments more concisely. METHOD: We applied the same methods as the 2020 Cochrane review, but focused on adult samples and comparisons of active treatments and unspecific control conditions. Standalone treatments (i.e. necessarily including individual psychotherapy as either the sole or one of several treatment components) and add-on interventions (i.e. complementing any ongoing individual BPD treatment) were analysed separately. Primary outcomes were BPD severity, self-harm, suicide-related outcomes and psychosocial functioning. Secondary outcomes were remaining BPD diagnostic criteria, depression and attrition. RESULTS: Thirty-one randomised controlled trials totalling 1870 participants were identified. Among standalone treatments, statistically significant effects of low overall certainty were observed for dialectical behaviour therapy (self-harm: standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.54, P = 0.006; psychosocial functioning: SMD -0.51, P = 0.01) and mentalisation-based treatment (self-harm: risk ratio 0.51, P < 0.0007; suicide-related outcomes: risk ratio 0.10, P < 0.0001). For adjunctive interventions, moderate-quality evidence of beneficial effects was observed for DBT skills training (BPD severity: SMD -0.66, P = 0.002; psychosocial functioning: SMD -0.45, P = 0.002), and statistically significant low-certainty evidence was observed for the emotion regulation group (BPD severity: mean difference -8.49, P < 0.00001), manual-assisted cognitive therapy (self-harm: mean difference -3.03, P = 0.03; suicide-related outcomes: SMD -0.96, P = 0.005) and the systems training for emotional predictability and problem-solving (BPD severity: SMD -0.48, P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: There is reasonable evidence to conclude that psychotherapeutic interventions are helpful for individuals with BPD. Replication studies are needed to enhance the certainty of findings.

Control interventions in randomised trials among people with mental health disorders.

BACKGROUND: Control interventions in randomised trials provide a frame of reference for the experimental interventions and enable estimations of causality. In the case of randomised trials assessing patients with mental health disorders, many different control interventions are used, and the choice of control intervention may have considerable impact on the estimated effects of the treatments being evaluated. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of typical control interventions in randomised trials with patients with mental health disorders. The difference in effects between control interventions translates directly to the impact a control group has on the estimated effect of an experimental intervention. We aimed primarily to assess the difference in effects between (i) wait-list versus no-treatment, (ii) usual care versus wait-list or no-treatment, and (iii) placebo interventions (all placebo interventions combined or psychological, pharmacological, and physical placebos individually) versus wait-list or no-treatment. Wait-list patients are offered the experimental intervention by the researchers after the trial has been finalised if it offers more benefits than harms, while no-treatment participants are not offered the experimental intervention by the researchers. SEARCH METHODS: In March 2018, we searched MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Embase, CENTRAL, and seven other databases and six trials registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials assessing patients with a mental health disorder that compared wait-list, usual care, or placebo interventions with wait-list or no-treatment . DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Titles, abstracts, and full texts were reviewed for eligibility. Review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias using Cochrane's risk of bias tool. GRADE was used to assess the quality of the evidence. We contacted researchers working in the field to ask for data from additional published and unpublished trials. A pre-planned decision hierarchy was used to select one benefit and one harm outcome from each trial. For the assessment of benefits, we summarised continuous data as standardised mean differences (SMDs) and dichotomous data as risk ratios (RRs). We used risk differences (RDs) for the assessment of adverse events. We used random-effects models for all statistical analyses. We used subgroup analysis to explore potential causes for heterogeneity (e.g. type of placebo) and sensitivity analyses to explore the robustness of the primary analyses (e.g. fixed-effect model). MAIN RESULTS: We included 96 randomised trials (4200 participants), ranging from 8 to 393 participants in each trial. 83 trials (3614 participants) provided usable data. The trials included 15 different mental health disorders, the most common being anxiety (25 trials), depression (16 trials), and sleep-wake disorders (11 trials). All 96 trials were assessed as high risk of bias partly because of the inability to blind participants and personnel in trials with two control interventions. The quality of evidence was rated low to very low, mostly due to risk of bias, imprecision in estimates, and heterogeneity. Only one trial compared wait-list versus no-treatment directly but the authors were not able to provide us with any usable data on the comparison. Five trials compared usual care versus wait-list or no-treatment and found a SMD -0.33 (95% CI -0.83 to 0.16, I² = 86%, 523 participants) on benefits. The difference between all placebo interventions combined versus wait-list or no-treatment was SMD -0.37 (95% CI -0.49 to -0.25, I² = 41%, 65 trials, 2446 participants) on benefits. There was evidence of some asymmetry in the funnel plot (Egger's test P value of 0.087). Almost all the trials were small. Subgroup analysis found a moderate effect in favour of psychological placebos SMD -0.49 (95% CI -0.64 to -0.30; I² = 53%, 39 trials, 1656 participants). The effect of pharmacological placebos versus wait-list or no-treatment on benefits was SMD -0.14 (95% CI -0.39 to 0.11, 9 trials, 279 participants) and the effect of physical placebos was SMD -0.21 (95% CI -0.35 to -0.08, I² = 0%, 17 trials, 896 participants). We found large variations in effect sizes in the psychological and pharmacological placebo comparisons. For specific mental health disorders, we found significant differences in favour of all placebos for sleep-wake disorders, major depressive disorder, and anxiety disorders, but the analyses were imprecise due to sparse data. We found no significant differences in harms for any of the comparisons but the analyses suffered from sparse data. When using a fixed-effect model in a sensitivity analysis on the comparison for usual care versus wait-list and no-treatment, the results were significant with an SMD of -0.46 (95 % CI -0.64 to -0.28). We reported an alternative risk of bias model where we excluded the blinding domains seeing how issues with blinding may be seen as part of the review investigation itself. However, this did not markedly change the overall risk of bias profile as most of the trials still included one or more unclear bias domains. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found marked variations in effects between placebo versus no-treatment and wait-list and between subtypes of placebo with the same comparisons. Almost all the trials were small with considerable methodological and clinical variability in factors such as mental health population, contents of the included control interventions, and outcome domains. All trials were assessed as high risk of bias and the evidence quality was low to very low. When researchers decide to use placebos or usual care control interventions in trials with people with mental health disorders it will often lead to lower estimated effects of the experimental intervention than when using wait-list or no-treatment controls. The choice of a control intervention therefore has considerable impact on how effective a mental health treatment appears to be. Methodological guideline development is needed to reach a consensus on future standards for the design and reporting of control interventions in mental health intervention research.

Pharmacological interventions for people with borderline personality disorder.

BACKGROUND: Among people with a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder (BPD) who are engaged in clinical care, prescription rates of psychotropic medications are high, despite the fact that medication use is off-label as a treatment for BPD. Nevertheless, people with BPD often receive several psychotropic drugs at a time for sustained periods. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of pharmacological treatment for people with BPD. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 14 other databases and four trials registers up to February 2022. We contacted researchers working in the field to ask for additional data from published and unpublished trials, and handsearched relevant journals. We did not restrict the search by year of publication, language or type of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing pharmacological treatment to placebo, other pharmacologic treatments or a combination of pharmacologic treatments in people of all ages with a formal diagnosis of BPD. The primary outcomes were BPD symptom severity, self-harm, suicide-related outcomes, and psychosocial functioning. Secondary outcomes were individual BPD symptoms, depression, attrition and adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, assessed risk of bias using Cochrane's risk of bias tool and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We performed data analysis using Review Manager 5 and quantified the statistical reliability of the data using Trial Sequential Analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included 46 randomised controlled trials (2769 participants) in this review, 45 of which were eligible for quantitative analysis and comprised 2752 participants with BPD in total. This is 18 more trials than the 2010 review on this topic. Participants were predominantly female except for one trial that included men only. The mean age ranged from 16.2 to 39.7 years across the included trials. Twenty-nine different types of medications compared to placebo or other medications were included in the analyses. Seventeen trials were funded or partially funded by the pharmaceutical industry, 10 were funded by universities or research foundations, eight received no funding, and 11 had unclear funding. For all reported effect sizes, negative effect estimates indicate beneficial effects by active medication. Compared with placebo, no difference in effects were observed on any of the primary outcomes at the end of treatment for any medication. Compared with placebo, medication may have little to no effect on BPD symptom severity, although the evidence is of very low certainty (antipsychotics: SMD -0.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.45 to 0.08; 8 trials, 951 participants; antidepressants: SMD -0.27, 95% CI -0.65 to 1.18; 2 trials, 87 participants; mood stabilisers: SMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.57; 4 trials, 265 participants). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of medication compared with placebo on self-harm, indicating little to no effect (antipsychotics: RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.84; 2 trials, 76 participants; antidepressants: MD 0.45 points on the Overt Aggression Scale-Modified-Self-Injury item (0-5 points), 95% CI -10.55 to 11.45; 1 trial, 20 participants; mood stabilisers: RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.48; 1 trial, 276 participants). The evidence is also very uncertain about the effect of medication compared with placebo on suicide-related outcomes, with little to no effect (antipsychotics: SMD 0.05, 95 % CI -0.18 to 0.29; 7 trials, 854 participants; antidepressants: SMD -0.26, 95% CI -1.62 to 1.09; 2 trials, 45 participants; mood stabilisers: SMD -0.36, 95% CI -1.96 to 1.25; 2 trials, 44 participants). Very low-certainty evidence shows little to no difference between medication and placebo on psychosocial functioning (antipsychotics: SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.00; 7 trials, 904 participants; antidepressants: SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.06; 4 trials, 161 participants; mood stabilisers: SMD -0.01, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.26; 2 trials, 214 participants). Low-certainty evidence suggests that antipsychotics may slightly reduce interpersonal problems (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.08; 8 trials, 907 participants), and that mood stabilisers may result in a reduction in this outcome (SMD -0.58, 95% CI -1.14 to -0.02; 4 trials, 300 participants). Antidepressants may have little to no effect on interpersonal problems, but the corresponding evidence is very uncertain (SMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.69 to 0.55; 2 trials, 119 participants). The evidence is very uncertain about dropout rates compared with placebo by antipsychotics (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.38; 13 trials, 1216 participants). Low-certainty evidence suggests there may be no difference in dropout rates between antidepressants (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.76; 6 trials, 289 participants) and mood stabilisers (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.15; 9 trials, 530 participants), compared to placebo. Reporting on adverse events was poor and mostly non-standardised. The available evidence on non-serious adverse events was of very low certainty for antipsychotics (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.29; 5 trials, 814 participants) and mood stabilisers (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.01; 1 trial, 276 participants). For antidepressants, no data on adverse events were identified. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review included 18 more trials than the 2010 version, so larger meta-analyses with more statistical power were feasible. We found mostly very low-certainty evidence that medication may result in no difference in any primary outcome. The rest of the secondary outcomes were inconclusive. Very limited data were available for serious adverse events. The review supports the continued understanding that no pharmacological therapy seems effective in specifically treating BPD pathology. More research is needed to understand the underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms of BPD better. Also, more trials including comorbidities such as trauma-related disorders, major depression, substance use disorders, or eating disorders are needed. Additionally, more focus should be put on male and adolescent samples.

Remarkable high frequency of insecure attachment in children with ADHD persists in a three-year follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Studies have pointed to a complicated and mutual relationship between attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and attachment. In an observational follow-up study conducted in 2015 60 children from 7 years to 12 years recently diagnosed with ADHD were included and assessed according to attachment representation showing 85% of the children to be insecurely attached. AIM: The aim of this study was to investigate the stability of this remarkably high frequency of insecure attachment in the same cohort of children. METHODS: Children previously assessed using the child attachment interview (CAI) when diagnosed with ADHD were contacted three years later for a follow-up CAI assessment. RESULTS: At follow-up, 31 children participated in the CAI-interviews. Since their diagnosis with ADHD, the children had received treatment as usual. The CAI-interviews showed a continued high rate of insecure attachment with 90% of the children classifying as insecurely attached compared to expected 38% in the normal population. Of these, the majority of children (77%) were classified as dismissing. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that targeting ADHD-symptoms with our current treatment strategies does not in itself improve attachment security. Attachment security may in turn be a factor of importance when evaluating general functioning and prognosis.

Mentalization-based treatment in groups for adolescents with Borderline Personality Disorder: 3- and 12-month follow-up of a randomized controlled trial.

Mentalization-based treatment in groups (MBT-G) has never been tested in adolescents with Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) in a randomized controlled trial. The current study aimed to test the long-term effectiveness of MBT-G in an adolescent sample with BPD or BPD features (≥ 4 DSM-5 BPD criteria). Hundred and eleven patients with BPD (n = 106) or BPD features (n = 5) were randomized to either (1) a 1-year modified MBT-G program comprising three MBT introductory sessions, five individual case formulation sessions, 37 weekly MBT group sessions, and six MBT-Parent sessions, or (2) treatment as usual (TAU), defined as at least 12 individual monthly treatment sessions with follow-up assessments at 3 and 12 months post treatment. The primary outcome was the score on the Borderline Personality Features Scale for Children (BPFS-C), and secondary outcomes included clinician-rated BPD symptoms and global level of functioning as well as self-reported self-harm, depression, externalizing and internalizing symptoms, and caregiver reports. There were no statistically significant differences between MBT-G and TAU on the primary outcome measure or any of the secondary outcomes. Both groups showed improvement on the majority of clinical and social outcomes at both follow-up points, although remission rates were modest with just 35% in MBT-G and 39% in TAU 2 years after inclusion into the study. MBT-G was not superior to TAU in improving borderline features in adolescents. Although improvement was observed equally in both interventions over time, the patients continued to exhibit prominent BPD features, general psychopathology and decreased functioning in the follow-up period, which points to a need for more research and better understanding of effective components in early intervention programs. The ClinicalTrials.gov identifier is NCT02068326.

Burden and Treatment Satisfaction among Caregivers of Adolescents with Borderline Personality Disorder.

Despite the fact that family involvement is encouraged in early interventions for borderline personality disorder (BPD), there is a limited knowledge on the experience of caring for adolescents with BPD. This is an exploratory retrospective study nested within a randomized controlled trial that compared mentalization-based treatment (MBT) in groups to treatment as usual for adolescents with BPD. Caregivers received six MBT-Parents sessions or standard care over one year. Three months after end of treatment (EOT), 75 caregivers (35 in MBT, 40 in TAU) filled out the Burden Assessment Scale, and 71 (34 in MBT, 37 in TAU) the Family Satisfaction Survey. The adolescents filled out the Borderline Personality Features Scale for Children at baseline and after twelve months at EOT. We tested whether caregiver demographics, adolescents' severity of BPD, treatment and adolescents' dropout from treatment predicted levels of caregiver burden and satisfaction with treatment. The caregivers reported high levels of burden on the BAS (M = 40.3, SD = 12.2). Our study suggests that higher BPD severity at EOT among the adolescents predicted caregiver burden (p = .03), whereas higher baseline BPD severity predicted satisfaction with treatment (p = .04) and that biological mothers could be more burdened than other types of caregivers but also might be more satisfied with treatment. Treatment and adolescents' dropout from treatment were not related to caregiver burden or satisfaction with treatment. To help inform future research and to devise appropriate interventions for caregivers and adolescents with BPD, it is important to identify possible predictors of caregiver burden. The results of this initial exploratory study indicate that caregivers (and particularly biological mothers) of adolescents with more severe levels of BPD could be particularly vulnerable toward feelings of burden and therefore are in need of support.

A pesar del hecho de que se recomienda la participación familiar en las primeras intervenciones para el trastorno límite de la personalidad (TLP), se sabe muy poco sobre la experiencia de cuidar a adolescentes con TLP. El presente es un estudio retrospectivo exploratorio enmarcado en un ensayo controlado aleatorizado que compara el tratamiento basado en la mentalización (TBM) en grupos con el tratamiento habitual (TH) para adolescentes con TLP. Los cuidadores recibieron seis sesiones de TBM para padres o la atención normal durante un año. Tres meses después del final del tratamiento, 75 cuidadores (35 en TBM, 40 en TH) completaron la Escala de Evaluación del Agobio (Burden Assessment Scale), y 71 (34 en TBM, 37 en TH) la Encuesta de Satisfacción Familiar (Family Satisfaction Survey). Los adolescentes completaron la Escala de Características de la Personalidad Límite para Niños (Borderline Personality Features Scale for Children) en el momento basal y después de doce meses al final del tratamiento. Evaluamos si las características demográficas de los cuidadores, la intensidad del TLP de los adolescentes, el tratamiento y la deserción del tratamiento por parte de los adolescentes predijeron niveles de agobio en los cuidadores y de satisfacción con el tratamiento. Los cuidadores informaron niveles altos de agobio en la Escala de Evaluación del Agobio (M = 40.3, DT= 12.2). Nuestro estudio indica que una mayor intensidad del TLP al final del tratamiento entre los adolescentes predijo el agobio del cuidador (p = .03), mientras que una mayor intensidad del TLP en el momento basal predijo la satisfacción con el tratamiento (p = .04), y que las madres biológicas podrían estar más agobiadas que otros tipos de cuidadores, pero también podrían estar más satisfechas con el tratamiento. El tratamiento y la deserción del tratamiento por parte de los adolescentes no estuvieron relacionados con el agobio del cuidador ni con la satisfacción con el tratamiento. Con el fin de contribuir a ampliar futuras investigaciones y de idear intervenciones adecuadas para cuidadores y adolescentes con TLP, es importante reconocer posibles predictores del agobio del cuidador. Los resultados de este estudio exploratorio inicial indican que los cuidadores (y particularmente las madres biológicas) de los adolescentes con niveles más intensos de TLP podrían ser particularmente vulnerables hacia sentimientos de agobio y, por lo tanto, necesitan apoyo.

Predictors of dropout among adolescents with borderline personality disorder attending mentalization-based group treatment.

Background: Premature termination from treatment or dropout is prevalent among patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD). To our knowledge, no studies have examined which factors predisposes dropout from therapy among adolescents with BPD. The current study examined sociodemographic, clinical and psychological predictors of dropout among adolescents who attended a one-year treatment program with mentalization-based group treatment (MBT-G).Methods: Participants were 89 female adolescent patients aged 14-18 years who attended MBT-G in a Danish child and adolescent psychiatric service and 56 matched controls who received non-manualized individual sessions (treatment as usual). Forty (45%) dropped out and 49 (55%) completed treatment in MBT-G. Pretreatment predictors included (1) sociodemographic variables such as age, schooling, relationship status and after-school job, (2) clinical measures of self-reported adolescent borderline personality features, depression, self-harm, internalizing and externalizing symptoms, and (3) psychological measures on self-reported reflective functioning (i.e., mentalizing) and attachment to peers and parents.Results: Binary logistic regression analyses revealed that lower reflective functioning was the only significant predictor of dropout in MBT-G. No sociodemographic or clinical variables predicted dropout. No significant predictors of dropout were identified among participants who received treatment as usual.Conclusions: Adolescents with BPD who report low reflective functioning are at increased risk of dropping out of MBT-G treatment but not treatment as usual. These findings highlight that clinicians need to consider level of reflective functioning among adolescents with BPD in MBT or in group therapy and adapt psychotherapy to the needs of the patient in order to reduce dropout.

Mentalization-based treatment in groups for adolescents with borderline personality disorder: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Borderline personality disorder (BPD) typically onsets in adolescence and predicts later functional disability in adulthood. Highly structured evidence-based psychotherapeutic programs, including mentalization-based treatment (MBT), are first choice treatment. The efficacy of MBT for BPD has mainly been tested with adults, and no RCT has examined the effectiveness of MBT in groups (MBT-G) for adolescent BPD. METHOD: A total of 112 adolescents (111 females) with BPD (106) or BPD symptoms ≥4 DSM-5 criteria (5) referred to child and adolescent psychiatric outpatient clinics were randomized to a 1-year MBT-G, consisting of three introductory, psychoeducative sessions, 37 weekly group sessions, five individual case formulation sessions, and six group sessions for caregivers, or treatment as usual (TAU) with at least 12 monthly individual sessions. The primary outcome was the score on the borderline personality features scale for children (BPFS-C); secondary outcomes included self-harm, depression, externalizing and internalizing symptoms (all self-report), caregiver reports, social functioning, and borderline symptoms rated by blinded clinicians. Outcome assessments were made at baseline, after 10, 20, and 30 weeks, and at end of treatment (EOT). The ClinicalTrials.gov identifier is NCT02068326. RESULTS: At EOT, the primary outcome was 71.3 (SD = 15.0) in the MBT-G group and 71.3 (SD = 15.2) in the TAU group (adjusted mean difference 0.4 BPFS-C units in favor of MBT-G, 95% confidence interval -6.3 to 7.1, p = .91). No significant group differences were found in the secondary outcomes. 29% in both groups remitted. 29% of the MBT group completed less than half of the sessions compared with 7% of the control group. CONCLUSIONS: There is no indication for superiority of either therapy method. The low remission rate points to the importance of continued research into early intervention. Specifically, retention problems need to be addressed.

Pharmacotherapy for Borderline Personality Disorder: an Update of Published, Unpublished and Ongoing Studies.

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW: We aim to identify the most recent evidence of randomised controlled trials evaluating continued drug treatments in people with a diagnosis of BPD, review the most recent findings, highlight trends in terms of currently ongoing studies and comment on the overall body of evidence. RECENT FINDINGS: We identified seven new RCTs, plus newly available data for an older RCT. Only three of these RCTs have been published in full text, while we found study data posted at trial registry platforms for the others. The new findings do not support fluoxetine as a treatment option for suicide and self-harm prevention. A large effectiveness study did not detect beneficial effects of lamotrigine in routine care. The prevalent use of medications in BPD is still not reflected or supported by the current evidence. More research is needed regarding the most commonly used substances and substance classes, i.e. SSRIs, and quetiapine, but also with respect to people presenting with distinct comorbid conditions.

Psychosocial interventions for conversion and dissociative disorders in adults.

BACKGROUND: Conversion and dissociative disorders are conditions where people experience unusual neurological symptoms or changes in awareness or identity. However, symptoms and clinical signs cannot be explained by a neurological disease or other medical condition. Instead, a psychological stressor or trauma is often present. The symptoms are real and can cause significant distress or problems with functioning in everyday life for the people experiencing them. OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of psychosocial interventions of conversion and dissociative disorders in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted database searches between 16 July and 16 August 2019. We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and eight other databases, together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials that compared psychosocial interventions for conversion and dissociative disorders with standard care, wait list or other interventions (pharmaceutical, somatic or psychosocial).  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We selected, quality assessed and extracted data from the identified studies. Two review authors independently performed all tasks. We used standard Cochrane methodology. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) and standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI. We assessed and downgraded the evidence according to the GRADE system for risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness, inconsistency and publication bias. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 studies (16 with parallel-group designs and one with a cross-over design), with 894 participants aged 18 to 80 years (female:male ratio 3:1).  The data were separated into 12 comparisons based on the different interventions and comparators. Studies were pooled into the same comparison when identical interventions and comparisons were evaluated. The certainty of the evidence was downgraded as a consequence of potential risk of bias, as many of the studies had unclear or inadequate allocation concealment. Further downgrading was performed due to imprecision, few participants and inconsistency. There were 12 comparisons for the primary outcome of reduction in physical signs. Inpatient paradoxical intention therapy compared with outpatient diazepam: inpatient paradoxical intention therapy did not reduce conversive symptoms compared with outpatient diazepam at the end of treatment (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.28; 1 study, 30 participants; P = 0.12; very low-quality evidence). Inpatient treatment programme plus hypnosis compared with inpatient treatment programme: inpatient treatment programme plus hypnosis did not reduce severity of impairment compared with inpatient treatment programme at the end of treatment (MD -0.49 (negative value better), 95% CI -1.28 to 0.30; 1 study, 45 participants; P = 0.23; very low-quality evidence). Outpatient hypnosis compared with wait list: outpatient hypnosis might reduce severity of impairment compared with wait list at the end of treatment (MD 2.10 (higher value better), 95% CI 1.34 to 2.86; 1 study, 49 participants; P < 0.00001; low-quality evidence). Behavioural therapy plus routine clinical care compared with routine clinical care: behavioural therapy plus routine clinical care might reduce the number of weekly seizures compared with routine clinical care alone at the end of treatment (MD -21.40 (negative value better), 95% CI -27.88 to -14.92; 1 study, 18 participants; P < 0.00001; very low-quality evidence). Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) compared with standard medical care: CBT did not reduce monthly seizure frequency compared to standard medical care at end of treatment (RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.39 to 6.19; 1 study, 16 participants; P = 0.53; very low-quality evidence). CBT did not reduce physical signs compared to standard medical care at the end of treatment (MD -4.75 (negative value better), 95% CI -18.73 to 9.23; 1 study, 61 participants; P = 0.51; low-quality evidence). CBT did not reduce seizure freedom compared to standard medical care at end of treatment (RR 2.33, 95% CI 0.30 to 17.88; 1 trial, 16 participants; P = 0.41; very low-quality evidence). Psychoeducational follow-up programmes compared with treatment as usual (TAU): no study measured reduction in physical signs at end of treatment. Specialised CBT-based physiotherapy inpatient programme compared with wait list: no study measured reduction in physical signs at end of treatment. Specialised CBT-based physiotherapy outpatient intervention compared with TAU: no study measured reduction in physical signs at end of treatment. Brief psychotherapeutic intervention (psychodynamic interpersonal treatment approach) compared with standard care: brief psychotherapeutic interventions did not reduce conversion symptoms compared to standard care at end of treatment (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.00; 1 study, 19 participants; P = 0.14; very low-quality evidence). CBT plus adjunctive physical activity (APA) compared with CBT alone: CBT plus APA did not reduce overall physical impacts compared to CBT alone at end of treatment (MD 5.60 (negative value better), 95% CI -15.48 to 26.68; 1 study, 21 participants; P = 0.60; very low-quality evidence). Hypnosis compared to diazepam: hypnosis did not reduce symptoms compared to diazepam at end of treatment (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.24; 1 study, 40 participants; P = 0.22; very low-quality evidence). Outpatient motivational interviewing (MI) and mindfulness-based psychotherapy compared with psychotherapy alone: psychotherapy preceded by MI might decrease seizure frequency compared with psychotherapy alone at end of treatment (MD 41.40 (negative value better), 95% CI 4.92 to 77.88; 1 study, 54 participants; P = 0.03; very low-quality evidence). The effect on the secondary outcomes was reported in 16/17  studies. None of the studies reported results on adverse effects. In the studies reporting on level of functioning and quality of life at end of treatment the effects ranged from small to no effect. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results of the meta-analysis and reporting of single studies suggest there is lack of evidence regarding the effects of any psychosocial intervention on conversion and dissociative disorders in adults. It is not possible to draw any conclusions about potential benefits or harms from the included studies.

Psychological therapies for people with borderline personality disorder.

BACKGROUND: Over the decades, a variety of psychological interventions for borderline personality disorder (BPD) have been developed. This review updates and replaces an earlier review (Stoffers-Winterling 2012). OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of psychological therapies for people with BPD. SEARCH METHODS: In March 2019, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 14 other databases and four trials registers. We contacted researchers working in the field to ask for additional data from published and unpublished trials, and handsearched relevant journals. We did not restrict the search by year of publication, language or type of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing different psychotherapeutic interventions with treatment-as-usual (TAU; which included various kinds of psychotherapy), waiting list, no treatment or active treatments in samples of all ages, in any setting, with a formal diagnosis of BPD. The primary outcomes were BPD symptom severity, self-harm, suicide-related outcomes, and psychosocial functioning. There were 11 secondary outcomes, including individual BPD symptoms, as well as attrition and adverse effects. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, assessed risk of bias using Cochrane's 'Risk of bias' tool and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We performed data analysis using Review Manager 5 and quantified the statistical reliability of the data using Trial Sequential Analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included 75 randomised controlled trials (4507 participants), predominantly involving females with mean ages ranging from 14.8 to 45.7 years. More than 16 different kinds of psychotherapy were included, mostly dialectical behaviour therapy (DBT) and mentalisation-based treatment (MBT). The comparator interventions included treatment-as-usual (TAU), waiting list, and other active treatments. Treatment duration ranged from one to 36 months. Psychotherapy versus TAU Psychotherapy reduced BPD symptom severity, compared to TAU; standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.70 to -0.33; 22 trials, 1244 participants; moderate-quality evidence. This corresponds to a mean difference (MD) of -3.6 (95% CI -4.4 to -2.08) on the Zanarini Rating Scale for BPD (range 0 to 36), a clinically relevant reduction in BPD symptom severity (minimal clinical relevant difference (MIREDIF) on this scale is -3.0 points). Psychotherapy may be more effective at reducing self-harm compared to TAU (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.14; 13 trials, 616 participants; low-quality evidence), corresponding to a MD of -0.82 (95% CI -1.25 to 0.35) on the Deliberate Self-Harm Inventory Scale (range 0 to 34). The MIREDIF of -1.25 points was not reached. Suicide-related outcomes improved compared to TAU (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.57 to -0.11; 13 trials, 666 participants; low-quality evidence), corresponding to a MD of -0.11 (95% CI -0.19 to -0.034) on the Suicidal Attempt Self Injury Interview. The MIREDIF of -0.17 points was not reached. Compared to TAU, psychotherapy may result in an improvement in psychosocial functioning (SMD -0.45, 95% CI -0.68 to -0.22; 22 trials, 1314 participants; low-quality evidence), corresponding to a MD of -2.8 (95% CI -4.25 to -1.38), on the Global Assessment of Functioning Scale (range 0 to 100). The MIREDIF of -4.0 points was not reached. Our additional Trial Sequential Analysis on all primary outcomes reaching significance found that the required information size was reached in all cases. A subgroup analysis comparing the different types of psychotherapy compared to TAU showed no clear evidence of a difference for BPD severity and psychosocial functioning. Psychotherapy may reduce depressive symptoms compared to TAU but the evidence is very uncertain (SMD -0.39, 95% CI -0.61 to -0.17; 22 trials, 1568 participants; very low-quality evidence), corresponding to a MD of -2.45 points on the Hamilton Depression Scale (range 0 to 50). The MIREDIF of -3.0 points was not reached. BPD-specific psychotherapy did not reduce attrition compared with TAU. Adverse effects were unclear due to too few data. Psychotherapy versus waiting list or no treatment Greater improvements in BPD symptom severity (SMD -0.49, 95% CI -0.93 to -0.05; 3 trials, 161 participants), psychosocial functioning (SMD -0.56, 95% CI -1.01 to -0.11; 5 trials, 219 participants), and depression (SMD -1.28, 95% CI -2.21 to -0.34, 6 trials, 239 participants) were observed in participants receiving psychotherapy versus waiting list or no treatment (all low-quality evidence). No evidence of a difference was found for self-harm and suicide-related outcomes. Individual treatment approaches DBT and MBT have the highest numbers of primary trials, with DBT as subject of one-third of all included trials, followed by MBT with seven RCTs. Compared to TAU, DBT was more effective at reducing BPD severity (SMD -0.60, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.14; 3 trials, 149 participants), self-harm (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.48 to -0.07; 7 trials, 376 participants) and improving psychosocial functioning (SMD -0.36, 95% CI -0.69 to -0.03; 6 trials, 225 participants). MBT appears to be more effective than TAU at reducing self-harm (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.80; 3 trials, 252 participants), suicidality (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.04, 0.30, 3 trials, 218 participants) and depression (SMD -0.58, 95% CI -1.22 to 0.05, 4 trials, 333 participants). All findings are based on low-quality evidence. For secondary outcomes see review text. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our assessments showed beneficial effects on all primary outcomes in favour of BPD-tailored psychotherapy compared with TAU. However, only the outcome of BPD severity reached the MIREDIF-defined cut-off for a clinically meaningful improvement. Subgroup analyses found no evidence of a difference in effect estimates between the different types of therapies (compared to TAU) . The pooled analysis of psychotherapy versus waiting list or no treatment found significant improvement on BPD severity, psychosocial functioning and depression at end of treatment, but these findings were based on low-quality evidence, and the true magnitude of these effects is uncertain. No clear evidence of difference was found for self-harm and suicide-related outcomes. However, compared to TAU, we observed effects in favour of DBT for BPD severity, self-harm and psychosocial functioning and, for MBT, on self-harm and suicidality at end of treatment, but these were all based on low-quality evidence. Therefore, we are unsure whether these effects would alter with the addition of more data.

Mapping factors facilitating resilience in mothers - potential clinical relevance for children with ADHD.

Background: Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is one of the most common neurobiological disorders in childhood. Maternal resilience has been linked to treatment outcome in child ADHD. However, not much is known about factors that may facilitate maternal resilience.Aim: The aim of this study was to explore factors potentially facilitating resilience in mothers to children with ADHD.Method: The current study was part of a naturalistic observational study. 64 mothers to children diagnosed with ADHD completed a set of questionnaires and a short protocol including demographic and psychosocial items. Correlation matrix were estimated for each of the scores to establish the relationship between them.Results: We found significant negative correlations between maternal self-reported attachment style and self-reported resilience and between self-reported ADHD-symptoms and resilience-score.Conclusion: The findings indicate that selected factors in maternal functioning may contribute to development of resilience, which may in turn be a factor of importance in parenting.

Social skills training for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children aged 5 to 18 years.

BACKGROUND: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children is associated with hyperactivity and impulsivity, attention problems, and difficulties with social interactions. Pharmacological treatment may alleviate the symptoms of ADHD but this rarely solves difficulties with social interactions. Children with ADHD may benefit from interventions designed to improve their social skills. We examined the benefits and harms of social skills training on social skills, emotional competencies, general behaviour, ADHD symptoms, performance in school of children with ADHD, and adverse events. OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of social skills training in children and adolescents with ADHD. SEARCH METHODS: In July 2018, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, 4 other databases and two trials registers.We also searched online conference abstracts, and contacted experts in the field for information about unpublished or ongoing randomised clinical trials. We did not limit our searches by language, year of publication, or type or status of publication, and we sought translation of the relevant sections of non-English language articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials investigating social skills training versus either no intervention or waiting-list control, with or without pharmacological treatment of both comparison groups of children and adolescents with ADHD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We conducted the review in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Intervention. We performed the analyses using Review Manager 5 software and Trial Sequential Analysis. We assessed bias according to domains for systematic errors. We assessed the certainty of the evidence with the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 25 randomised clinical trials described in 45 reports. The trials included a total of 2690 participants aged between five and 17 years. In 17 trials, participants were also diagnosed with various comorbidities.The social skills interventions were described as: 1) social skills training, 2) cognitive behavioural therapy, 3) multimodal behavioural/psychosocial therapy, 4) child life and attention skills treatment, 5) life skills training, 6) the "challenging horizon programme", 7) verbal self-instruction, 8) meta-cognitive training, 9) behavioural therapy, 10) behavioural and social skills treatment, and 11) psychosocial treatment. The control interventions were no intervention or waiting list.The duration of the interventions ranged from five weeks to two years. We considered the content of the social skills interventions to be comparable and based on a cognitive-behavioural model. Most of the trials compared child social skills training or parent training combined with medication versus medication alone. Some of the experimental interventions also included teacher consultations.More than half of the trials were at high risk of bias for generation of the allocation sequence and allocation concealment. No trial reported on blinding of participants and personnel. Most of the trials did not report on differences between groups in medication for comorbid disorders. We used all eligible trials in the meta-analyses, but downgraded the certainty of the evidence to low or very low.We found no clinically relevant treatment effect of social skills interventions on the primary outcome measures: teacher-rated social skills at end of treatment (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.22; 11 trials, 1271 participants; I2 = 0%; P = 0.05); teacher-rated emotional competencies at end of treatment (SMD -0.02, 95% CI -0.72 to 0.68; two trials, 129 participants; I2 = 74%; P = 0.96); or on teacher-rated general behaviour (SMD -0.06 (negative value better), 95% CI -0.19 to 0.06; eight trials, 1002 participants; I2 = 0%; P = 0.33). The effect on the primary outcome, teacher-rated social skills at end of treatment, corresponds to a MD of 1.22 points on the social skills rating system (SSRS) scale (95% CI 0.09 to 2.36). The minimal clinical relevant difference (10%) on the SSRS is 10.0 points (range 0 to 102 points on SSRS).We found evidence in favour of social skills training on teacher-rated core ADHD symptoms at end of treatment for all eligible trials (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.05; 14 trials, 1379 participants; I2= 69%; P = 0.02), but the finding is questionable due to lack of support from sensitivity analyses, high risk of bias, lack of clinical significance, high heterogeneity, and low certainty.The studies did not report any serious or non-serious adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The review suggests that there is little evidence to support or refute social skills training for children and adolescents with ADHD. We may need more trials that are at low risk of bias and a sufficient number of participants to determine the efficacy of social skills training versus no training for ADHD. The evidence base regarding adolescents is especially weak.

Methylphenidate for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents - assessment of adverse events in non-randomised studies.

BACKGROUND: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common neurodevelopmental disorder in childhood. The psychostimulant methylphenidate is the most frequently used medication to treat it. Several studies have investigated the benefits of methylphenidate, showing possible favourable effects on ADHD symptoms, but the true magnitude of the effect is unknown. Concerning adverse events associated with the treatment, our systematic review of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) demonstrated no increase in serious adverse events, but a high proportion of participants suffered a range of non-serious adverse events. OBJECTIVES: To assess the adverse events associated with methylphenidate treatment for children and adolescents with ADHD in non-randomised studies. SEARCH METHODS: In January 2016, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, 12 other databases and two trials registers. We also checked reference lists and contacted authors and pharmaceutical companies to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included non-randomised study designs. These comprised comparative and non-comparative cohort studies, patient-control studies, patient reports/series and cross-sectional studies of methylphenidate administered at any dosage or formulation. We also included methylphenidate groups from RCTs assessing methylphenidate versus other interventions for ADHD as well as data from follow-up periods in RCTs. Participants had to have an ADHD diagnosis (from the 3rd to the 5th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or the 9th or 10th edition of theInternational Classification of Diseases, with or without comorbid diagnoses. We required that at least 75% of participants had a normal intellectual capacity (intelligence quotient of more than 70 points) and were aged below 20 years. We excluded studies that used another ADHD drug as a co-intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Fourteen review authors selected studies independently. Two review authors assessed risk of bias independently using the ROBINS-I tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. All review authors extracted data. We defined serious adverse events according to the International Committee of Harmonization as any lethal, life-threatening or life-changing event. We considered all other adverse events to be non-serious adverse events and conducted meta-analyses of data from comparative studies. We calculated meta-analytic estimates of prevalence from non-comparative cohorts studies and synthesised data from patient reports/series qualitatively. We investigated heterogeneity by conducting subgroup analyses, and we also conducted sensitivity analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 260 studies: 7 comparative cohort studies, 6 of which compared 968 patients who were exposed to methylphenidate to 166 controls, and 1 which assessed 1224 patients that were exposed or not exposed to methylphenidate during different time periods; 4 patient-control studies (53,192 exposed to methylphenidate and 19,906 controls); 177 non-comparative cohort studies (2,207,751 participants); 2 cross-sectional studies (96 participants) and 70 patient reports/series (206 participants). Participants' ages ranged from 3 years to 20 years. Risk of bias in the included comparative studies ranged from moderate to critical, with most studies showing critical risk of bias. We evaluated all non-comparative studies at critical risk of bias. The GRADE quality rating of the evidence was very low.Primary outcomesIn the comparative studies, methylphenidate increased the risk ratio (RR) of serious adverse events (RR 1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17 to 1.57; 2 studies, 72,005 participants); any psychotic disorder (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.57; 1 study, 71,771 participants); and arrhythmia (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.48 to 1.74; 1 study, 1224 participants) compared to no intervention.In the non-comparative cohort studies, the proportion of participants on methylphenidate experiencing any serious adverse event was 1.20% (95% CI 0.70% to 2.00%; 50 studies, 162,422 participants). Withdrawal from methylphenidate due to any serious adverse events occurred in 1.20% (95% CI 0.60% to 2.30%; 7 studies, 1173 participants) and adverse events of unknown severity led to withdrawal in 7.30% of participants (95% CI 5.30% to 10.0%; 22 studies, 3708 participants).Secondary outcomesIn the comparative studies, methylphenidate, compared to no intervention, increased the RR of insomnia and sleep problems (RR 2.58, 95% CI 1.24 to 5.34; 3 studies, 425 participants) and decreased appetite (RR 15.06, 95% CI 2.12 to 106.83; 1 study, 335 participants).With non-comparative cohort studies, the proportion of participants on methylphenidate with any non-serious adverse events was 51.2% (95% CI 41.2% to 61.1%; 49 studies, 13,978 participants). These included difficulty falling asleep, 17.9% (95% CI 14.7% to 21.6%; 82 studies, 11,507 participants); headache, 14.4% (95% CI 11.3% to 18.3%; 90 studies, 13,469 participants); abdominal pain, 10.7% (95% CI 8.60% to 13.3%; 79 studies, 11,750 participants); and decreased appetite, 31.1% (95% CI 26.5% to 36.2%; 84 studies, 11,594 participants). Withdrawal of methylphenidate due to non-serious adverse events occurred in 6.20% (95% CI 4.80% to 7.90%; 37 studies, 7142 participants), and 16.2% were withdrawn for unknown reasons (95% CI 13.0% to 19.9%; 57 studies, 8340 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that methylphenidate may be associated with a number of serious adverse events as well as a large number of non-serious adverse events in children and adolescents, which often lead to withdrawal of methylphenidate. Our certainty in the evidence is very low, and accordingly, it is not possible to accurately estimate the actual risk of adverse events. It might be higher than reported here.Given the possible association between methylphenidate and the adverse events identified, it may be important to identify people who are most susceptible to adverse events. To do this we must undertake large-scale, high-quality RCTs, along with studies aimed at identifying responders and non-responders.

The Cochrane Collaboration withdraws a review on methylphenidate for adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

A Cochrane systematic review on immediate-release methylphenidate for adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was withdrawn from the Cochrane Library on 26 May 2016 after substantial criticism of its methods and flawed conclusions. Retraction of scientific papers on this basis is unusual but can be necessary. We provide a summary of the criticism that led to the withdrawal. We detail the methodological flaws of the withdrawn Cochrane systematic review and general issues of bias and shortcomings of the included ADHD trials: cross-over designs compared with parallel-group designs, exclusion of participants with psychiatric comorbidity, absence of 'functional outcomes' and use of clinical outcomes with limited relevance, short trial duration and small trial populations, broken blinding caused by easily recognisable side effects, combining outcome assessments by trial investigators and participants, outcome reporting bias, poor evaluation of cardiovascular and psychiatric harms and conflicts of interest of trialists and systematic reviewers. The withdrawal of the Cochrane systematic review signals recognition of previous unreliable clinical ADHD research. We conclude that clinical trials of immediate-release methylphenidate in adults with ADHD are of very low quality. We urgently need well-conducted long-term trials free of bias to assess the benefits and harms of central stimulant treatment in adult ADHD.