Personality disorders (PD) are common and burdensome mental disorders. The treatment of individuals with PD represents one of the more challenging areas in the field of mental health and health care providers need evidencebased recommendations to best support patients with PDs. Clinical guidelines serve this purpose and are formulated by expert consensus and/or systematic reviews of the current evidence. In this review, European guidelines for the treatment of PDs are summarized and evaluated. To date, eight countries in Europe have developed and published guidelines that differ in quality with regard to recency and completeness, transparency of methods, combination of expert knowledge with empirical data, and patient/service user involvement. Five of the guidelines are about Borderline personality disorder (BPD), one is about antisocial personality disorder and three concern PD in general. After evaluating the methodological quality of the nine European guidelines from eight countries, results in the domains of diagnosis, psychotherapy and pharmacological treatment of PD are discussed. Our comparison of guidelines reveals important contradictions between recommendations in relation to diagnosis, length and setting of treatment, as well as the use of pharmacological treatment. All the guidelines recommend psychotherapy as the treatment of first choice. Future guidelines should rigorously follow internationally accepted methodology and should more systematically include the views of patients and users.

Purpose of review The International Classification of Diseases, 11th Edition (ICD-11) classifies personality disturbance according to levels of severity. This article reviews the literature on levels of personality functioning in relation to clinical management and treatment, and proposes how these findings apply to the ICD-11 classification of personality disorders. Recent findings Findings were primarily derived from studies using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5) Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS), Kernberg's Level of Personality Organization, and the general P-factor of personality disorder. Severity of personality dysfunction is related to treatment outcome, risk of dropout, therapeutic alliance, readiness for treatment, risk of harm to self or others, risk of dissociation and psychotic-like breaks, coherence in narrative identity, reflective functioning, and epistemic trust. Summary The overall level of personality disorder severity indicates risk of negative outcomes and may be used as decision tool for ‘personalized medicine’ and required treatment intensity (e.g., strength of alliance and the need for establishing epistemic trust). Beyond the ICD-11 guidelines for determining personality disorder severity, these implications also apply to practitioners using comparable frameworks such as the DSM-5 LPFS and Kernberg's Level of Personality Organization. Future research should focus on the interaction of severity with trait qualifiers in relation to clinical management.

ObjectivesTo study the extent of blinding in randomised clinical trials of psychological interventions and the interpretative considerations if randomised clinical trials are not blinded.DesignRetrospective study of trial reports published in six high impact factor journals within the field of psychiatry in 2017 and 2018.SettingTrial reports published in World Psychiatry, JAMA Psychiatry, Lancet Psychiatry, American Journal of Psychiatry, British Journal of Psychiatry, or Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics.Main outcome measuresBlinding status of participants, treatment providers, outcome assessors, data managers, the data safety and monitoring committee, statisticians and conclusion makers, if trialists rejected the null hypothesis on the primary outcome measure, and if trialists discussed the potential bias risk from lack of blinding in the published trial report.Results63 randomised clinical trials of psychological interventions were identified. None (0%; 95% CI 0% to 5.75%) of the trials reported blinding of all possible key persons. 37 (58.7%; 95% CI 46.42% to 70.04%) trials reported blinding of outcome assessors. Two (3.2%; 95% CI 0.87% to 10.86%) trials reported blinding of participants. Two (3.2%; 95% CI 0.87% to 10.86%) trials reported blinding of data managers. Three (4.8%; 95% CI 1.63% to 13.09%) trials reported blinding of statisticians. None of the trials reported blinding of treatment providers, the data safety and monitoring committee, and conclusion makers. 45 (71.4%; 95% CI 59.30% to 81.10%) trials rejected the null hypothesis on the primary outcome(s). 13 (20.7%; 95% CI 12.48% to 32.17%) trials discussed the potential bias risk from lack of blinding in the published trial report.ConclusionsBlinding of key persons involved in randomised clinical trials of psychological interventions is rarely sufficiently documented. The possible interpretative limitations are only rarely considered. There is a need of randomised clinical trials of psychological interventions with documented blinding attempts of all possible key persons.

Randomized trials with low risk of bias and low risk of random errors are needed, although the effects of cognitive therapy and interpersonal psychotherapy do not seem to differ significantly regarding depressive symptoms. Future trials should report on adverse events.