There has been debate about the frequency and severity of antidepressant withdrawal effects.

We set out to appraise and reanalyze an influential systematic review by Henssler and colleagues that concluded that withdrawal effects are not particularly common and rarely severe. We repeated the meta-analysis, including only studies where data were derived from systematic measures of withdrawal symptoms.

Most data in the Henssler review are derived from pharmaceutical industry–sponsored efficacy studies in which withdrawal was a minor consideration. Shortcomings of the review include the use of spontaneously reported adverse events to estimate withdrawal symptoms, potential misclassification of withdrawal symptoms as relapse, inclusion of data from retrospective case-note studies, short duration of prior antidepressant use, short observation periods, the overlooking of differences between placebo and drug withdrawal effects, and the use of questionable proxies for severe withdrawal. There were also discrepancies and uncertainties in some figures used. In our reanalysis, we included only the five studies that used a systematic and relevant method to assess the incidence of any withdrawal symptom. Prior treatment was short-term (12 weeks or less) in all but one of these. The pooled percentage was 55% (95% confidence interval, CI, 31% to 81%; N = 601) without subtracting nocebo effects, with high heterogeneity.

Henssler’s review is based on unreliable data and does not provide an adequate basis for the evaluation of antidepressant withdrawal effects. Further good-quality research on antidepressant withdrawal is required.

Medications are commonly used to treat co-occurring psychopathology in persons with borderline personality disorder (BPD)

To systematically review and integrate the evidence of medications for treatment of co-occurring psychopathology in people with BPD, and explore the role of comorbidities.

Building on the current Cochrane review of medications in BPD, an update literature search was done in March 2024. We followed the methods of this Cochrane review, but scrutinised all identified placebo-controlled trials post hoc for reporting of non BPD-specific (‘co-occurring’) psychopathology, and explored treatment effects in subgroups of samples with and without defined co-occurring disorders. GRADE ratings were done to assess the evidence certainty.

Twenty-two trials were available for quantitative analyses. For antipsychotics, we found very-low-certainty evidence (VLCE) of an effect on depressive symptoms (standardised mean difference (SMD) −0.22, P = 0.04), and low-certainty evidence (LCE) of an effect on psychotic–dissociative symptoms (SMD −0.28, P = 0.007). There was evidence of effects of anticonvulsants on depressive (SMD −0.44, P = 0.02; LCE) and anxious symptoms (SMD −1.11, P < 0.00001; VLCE). For antidepressants, no significant findings were observed (VLCE). Exploratory subgroup analyses indicated a greater effect of antipsychotics in samples including participants with co-occurring substance use disorders on psychotic–dissociative symptoms (P = 0.001).

Our findings, based on VLCE and LCE only, do not support the use of pharmacological interventions in people with BPD to target co-occurring psychopathology. Overall, the current evidence does not support differential treatment effects in persons with versus without defined comorbidities. Medications should be used cautiously to target co-occurring psychopathology.

The 26-item version of the Metacognitive Anger Processing Scale (MAP) has shown good psychometric properties in previous studies. However, there is a need for a shorter version of the scale.

The aim of the present study is to psychometrically evaluate the 9-item Metacognitive Anger Processing Scale – Short Version (MAP-SV) in comparison with the original, 26-item version.

The 26-item MAP includes three subscales: rumination, positive beliefs and negative beliefs. Three items from each subscale were selected based on clinical validity to constitute the 9-item MAP-SV. A previous sample used for validation of the 26-item MAP was used for clinimetric testing. The sample included psychiatric patients (n = 88) and male forensic inpatients (n = 54). The MAP-SV was assessed according to scalability, convergent validity with general metacognition, and concurrent validity with anger measures.

The scalability of the 9-item MAP-SV was comparable to that of the original 26-item MAP in most psychometric tests. The Loevinger’s coefficient of homogeneity for the total score of the MAP-SV items was 0.29 for the combined sample compared with 0.36 in the original MAP, indicating close to acceptable scalability. The alpha coefficient for the MAP-SV total score was 0.79. For the combined sample, Pearson inter-correlations between the subscales of the MAP-SV were highly correlated with the MAP-SV total score (ranging from .66 to .84).

The 9-item MAP-SV showed good psychometric properties and can be used as a reliable tool for assessing self-reported metacognitive anger processing.