↓ Skip to main content

A Focused Systematic Review of Pharmacological Treatment for Borderline Personality Disorder

Overview of attention for article published in CNS Drugs, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
136 Mendeley
Title
A Focused Systematic Review of Pharmacological Treatment for Borderline Personality Disorder
Published in
CNS Drugs, March 2017
DOI 10.1007/s40263-017-0425-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ella Hancock-Johnson, Chris Griffiths, Marco Picchioni

Abstract

Medicines are routinely prescribed to treat borderline personality disorder (BPD) despite a relative lack of high-quality evidence and in breach of some treatment guidelines. An earlier Cochrane review of pharmacotherapy in BPD underlined the lack of evidence, encouraged the replication of earlier studies, but also emphasised the pressing need for more randomised placebo-controlled trials, and for those studies to employ broadened inclusion criteria. The authors searched bibliographic databases, reference lists of articles and trials registers. Records were screened to identify those that met the inclusion criteria. Full-text articles were screened and assessed for eligibility. On-going trials of pharmacotherapy in BPD were also identified. Fifteen new studies of pharmacotherapy for BPD were identified since the earlier review. Eight of those examined second generation antipsychotics, two investigated mood stabilisers, three investigated antidepressants and two studied the effectiveness of opioid antagonists. Results for the effectiveness of antipsychotics appeared to be mixed. There has been little recent evidence to support the use of mood stabilisers. There is a lack of new placebo-controlled, randomised controlled trials investigating antidepressants and limited new evidence to support the use of opioid antagonists. The review revealed that there remains a dearth of high-quality research evidence to help patients, carers and clinicians make sound and safe evidence-based decisions about medicines to treat BPD.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 136 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 136 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 20 15%
Other 15 11%
Researcher 15 11%
Student > Master 15 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 7%
Other 21 15%
Unknown 40 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 28%
Psychology 26 19%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 4%
Neuroscience 5 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 4%
Other 13 10%
Unknown 44 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 March 2022.
All research outputs
#7,678,279
of 23,365,820 outputs
Outputs from CNS Drugs
#695
of 1,320 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,415
of 309,436 outputs
Outputs of similar age from CNS Drugs
#7
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,365,820 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,320 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 309,436 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.