[Skip to Navigation]
Comment & Response
August 2017

Reviews and Meta-analyses of Psychotherapy Efficacy for Borderline Personality Disorder—Reply

Author Affiliations
  • 1Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Babeş-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania
  • 2Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford, Stanford University, Stanford, California
  • 3Section of Psychiatry, Department of Neuroscience, Biomedicine and Movement Sciences, University of Verona, Verona, Italy
  • 4Department of Clinical Psychology, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
JAMA Psychiatry. 2017;74(8):854-855. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.1403

In Reply We thank Faltinsen and colleagues for their judicious comments on our meta-analysis1 and will hereby address each point. The authors underscore the lack of a registered protocol, which we fully acknowledge as a limitation. However, as meta-analyses deal with secondary observational data, the potential pernicious influence of investigator biases might be lessened. The authors maintain selective reporting in systematic reviews is widespread, but cite evidence pertaining primarily to inadequate harm reporting in primary trials included in systematic reviews, rather than in reviews themselves. For these, the evidence for selective outcome reporting and its association with outcomes is mixed.2 Nevertheless, for full transparency, we made all extracted data publicly available (https://figshare.com/articles/Data_for_Cristea_et_al_2017_JAMA_Psychiatry/4892111).

Add or change institution