Search

In the current diagnostic systems, the International Classification of Diseases-11th rev. (ICD-11) and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5th ed. (DSM-5), the evaluation and diagnosis of personality disorder (PD) aim at dimensional examination of the severity of its dysfunction and the stylistic features that accompany it. Since their implementation, or even before, several measures have been developed to assess PD severity and traits in both models. Thus, convergent validity metrics have been reported with various PD measures; however, the convergence of the same constructs included in the measures of these two models remains undefined. The objective of the present review was to examine whether there is a sufficient relationship between PD measures of the ICD-11 and DSM-5 AMPD in the general population. For this meta-analytic review, systematic searches were conducted in Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar. We included studies that reported Pearson’s r correlations without restrictions on language, age, sex, setting, type of sample, or informant of the measures. We excluded associations with anankastia, psychoticism or the borderline pattern because they were not comparable between one dimensional model and the other. We examined the quality of the evidence with the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Analytical Cross Sectional Studies, and performed the random effects meta-analysis with the ‘meta’ package of the RStudio software. Of the 5,629 results returned by the search, 16 studies were eligible; and showed moderate quality. The risk of bias was manifested by not specifying the details of the sample, the recruitment environment, and the identification and control of confounding factors. Thirteen studies provided two or more correlations resulting in a total of 54 studies for meta-analysis. The overall effect size estimate (correlation) was moderate for the overall model (r = 0.62, 95% CI [0.57, 0.67], p

With the implementation of new dimensional models of personality disorder (PD) in the DSM-5 and ICD-11, several investigators have developed and evaluated the psychometric properties of measures of severity. The diagnostic accuracy of these measures, an important cross-cultural metric that falls between validity and clinical utility, remains unclear. This study aimed to analyze and synthesize the diagnostic performance of the measures designed for both models. For this purpose, searches were carried out using three databases: Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science. Studies that presented sensitivity and specificity parameters for cut-off points were selected. There were no restrictions on the age and gender of the participants nor on the reference standard used or the settings. Study quality and synthesis were assessed using QUADAS-2 and MetaDTA software, respectively. Twelve studies were eligible covering self-reported and clinician-rated measures based on the ICD-11 and DSM-5 PD severity models. A total of 66.7% of the studies showed a risk of bias in more than 2 domains. The 10th and 12th studies provided additional metrics, resulting in a total of 21 studies for evidence synthesis. Adequate overall sensitivity and specificity (Se = 0.84, Sp = 0.69) of these measures were obtained; however, the cross-cultural performance of specific cut-off points could not be assessed due to the paucity of studies on the same measure. Evidence suggests that patient selection processes should mainly be improved (avoid case–control design), use adequate reference standards, and avoid only reporting metrics for the optimal cut-off point.