Evidence Hub

Treatment modifiers of interpersonal functioning in psychotherapy for people with borderline personality disorder: Systematic review with meta-analyses of individual participant data

Johanne Pereira Ribeiro, Jutta Marie Stoffers-Winterling, Mie Sedoc Jørgensen, Sophie Juul, Minoo Matbouriahi, David J. Fisher, Wouter van Ballegooijen, Mickey Kongerslev et al.

Clinical Psychology Review, 2026

2,762 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is often accompanied by interpersonal dysfunction. Psychotherapy can improve interpersonal functioning, but individual characteristics may moderate outcomes. This systematic review used individual participant data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) to examine such moderators. METHOD: A literature search up to 26 November 2025 across 10 databases (including PubMed, Medline, Embase, PsychINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL) identified randomised clinical trials (RCTs) investigating the effects of psychotherapy on interpersonal functioning in individuals with BPD compared to treatment as usual (TAU) or clinical management control interventions (CM). Authors of included trials were contacted to retrieve IPD. IPD-MAs employed a one-stage random-effects approach to estimate treatment effects on interpersonal functioning and potential moderators in bivariate linear mixed-effects models. The study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021210688). RESULTS: Out of 23,735 identified records, 32 RCTs (2762 participants) met inclusion criteria. Individual participant data (IPD) were available for 17 trials (1431 participants). All trials were rated as having either high risk of bias or some concerns. Missing data were common, with 321 out of 1431 participants (23%) lost to follow-up. Meta-analyses of both aggregate data and IPD yielded comparable effect estimates, though statistical significance differed (IPD-MA: β = -0.21, CI: -0.45 to…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 2,762 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free