Bernardo Paim de Mattos, Eric Pascher, Ramiro Figueiredo Catelan, Igor Eckert
{"title":"致编辑的信：《边缘型人格障碍的心理治疗：系统回顾》中行为和报告的方法论缺陷。","authors":"Bernardo Paim de Mattos, Eric Pascher, Ramiro Figueiredo Catelan, Igor Eckert","doi":"10.1037/ccp0000883","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This brief commentary critically examines the study \"Psychotherapies for the Treatment of Borderline Personality Disorder: A Systematic Review\" by Crotty et al. (2023) It highlights several methodological and reporting concerns that impact the study's credibility and conclusions. Key issues include the retrospective registration of the study protocol, discrepancies in authorship and protocol content, lack of clarity in inclusion and exclusion criteria, and limitations in geographical scope without clear justification. Furthermore, the letter discusses inconsistencies in the risk of bias and quality of evidence assessments, particularly in the application of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. These methodological shortcomings question the study's findings, contrasting with other comprehensive reviews in the field. The critique emphasizes the importance of methodological rigor and transparency in systematic reviews, especially those influencing clinical practice and policy decisions in mental health care. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":15447,"journal":{"name":"Journal of consulting and clinical psychology","volume":"92 11","pages":"779-781"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Letter to the editor: Methodological flaws on the conduct and reporting in \\\"Psychotherapies for the treatment of borderline personality disorder: A systematic review\\\".\",\"authors\":\"Bernardo Paim de Mattos, Eric Pascher, Ramiro Figueiredo Catelan, Igor Eckert\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/ccp0000883\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This brief commentary critically examines the study \\\"Psychotherapies for the Treatment of Borderline Personality Disorder: A Systematic Review\\\" by Crotty et al. (2023) It highlights several methodological and reporting concerns that impact the study's credibility and conclusions. Key issues include the retrospective registration of the study protocol, discrepancies in authorship and protocol content, lack of clarity in inclusion and exclusion criteria, and limitations in geographical scope without clear justification. Furthermore, the letter discusses inconsistencies in the risk of bias and quality of evidence assessments, particularly in the application of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. These methodological shortcomings question the study's findings, contrasting with other comprehensive reviews in the field. The critique emphasizes the importance of methodological rigor and transparency in systematic reviews, especially those influencing clinical practice and policy decisions in mental health care. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15447,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of consulting and clinical psychology\",\"volume\":\"92 11\",\"pages\":\"779-781\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of consulting and clinical psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000883\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of consulting and clinical psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000883","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
这篇简短的评论批判性地审视了Crotty等人（2023）的研究“治疗边缘型人格障碍的心理疗法：系统回顾”。它强调了影响研究可信度和结论的几个方法和报告问题。关键问题包括研究方案的回顾性注册，作者和方案内容的差异，纳入和排除标准缺乏明确性，以及地理范围的限制而没有明确的理由。此外，该信还讨论了证据评估的偏倚风险和质量方面的不一致，特别是在建议分级评估、开发和评估系统的应用方面。与该领域的其他综合综述相比，这些方法上的缺陷对该研究的结果提出了质疑。该评论强调了系统评价中方法严谨性和透明度的重要性，特别是那些影响临床实践和精神卫生保健政策决策的评价。（PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA，版权所有）。
Letter to the editor: Methodological flaws on the conduct and reporting in "Psychotherapies for the treatment of borderline personality disorder: A systematic review".
This brief commentary critically examines the study "Psychotherapies for the Treatment of Borderline Personality Disorder: A Systematic Review" by Crotty et al. (2023) It highlights several methodological and reporting concerns that impact the study's credibility and conclusions. Key issues include the retrospective registration of the study protocol, discrepancies in authorship and protocol content, lack of clarity in inclusion and exclusion criteria, and limitations in geographical scope without clear justification. Furthermore, the letter discusses inconsistencies in the risk of bias and quality of evidence assessments, particularly in the application of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. These methodological shortcomings question the study's findings, contrasting with other comprehensive reviews in the field. The critique emphasizes the importance of methodological rigor and transparency in systematic reviews, especially those influencing clinical practice and policy decisions in mental health care. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
期刊介绍：
The Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology® (JCCP) publishes original contributions on the following topics: the development, validity, and use of techniques of diagnosis and treatment of disordered behaviorstudies of a variety of populations that have clinical interest, including but not limited to medical patients, ethnic minorities, persons with serious mental illness, and community samplesstudies that have a cross-cultural or demographic focus and are of interest for treating behavior disordersstudies of personality and of its assessment and development where these have a clear bearing on problems of clinical dysfunction and treatmentstudies of gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation that have a clear bearing on diagnosis, assessment, and treatmentstudies of psychosocial aspects of health behaviors. Studies that focus on populations that fall anywhere within the lifespan are considered. JCCP welcomes submissions on treatment and prevention in all areas of clinical and clinical–health psychology and especially on topics that appeal to a broad clinical–scientist and practitioner audience. JCCP encourages the submission of theory–based interventions, studies that investigate mechanisms of change, and studies of the effectiveness of treatments in real-world settings. JCCP recommends that authors of clinical trials pre-register their studies with an appropriate clinical trial registry (e.g., ClinicalTrials.gov, ClinicalTrialsRegister.eu) though both registered and unregistered trials will continue to be considered at this time.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
