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).

中文翻译：

---

给编辑的信：“治疗边缘型人格障碍的心理疗法：系统评价”中行为和报告的方法论缺陷。


本简短评论批判性地审查了 Crotty 等人（2023 年）的研究“治疗边缘型人格障碍的心理疗法：系统评价”，它强调了影响研究可信度和结论的几个方法论和报告问题。关键问题包括研究方案的回顾性注册、作者身份和方案内容的差异、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，这封信还讨论了偏倚风险和证据评估质量的不一致，特别是在建议分级评估、开发和评估系统的应用方面。这些方法学上的缺陷对研究结果提出了质疑，与该领域的其他综合评价形成鲜明对比。该批评强调了系统评价方法严谨性和透明度的重要性，尤其是那些影响心理健康护理临床实践和政策决策的系统评价。（PsycInfo 数据库记录 （c） 2024 APA，保留所有权利）。