Components of event-related potentials and borderline personality disorder: a meta-analysis

Figures & data

Figure 1. Flow diagram for the study selection process.

Table 1. Summary of studies relating P300 and BPD symptoms.

								IC (95%)
Author	n BPD	Age (M; SD)	%Female	Gini	GDP	Variable	r	Lower	Upper
Endrass et al. (2016)	18	30.9; 7.2	72%	.317	4700000000000	Risky decisions (impulsivity) loss condition.	.56	[0,126,	.814]
						Risk decisions (impulsivity) gain condition.	.58	[0,155,	.824]
Xi et al. (2021)	27	24.6; 1.04	37%	.382	17960000000000	Adaptive coping Pz electrode.	.42	[0.048,	.690]
						Impulsivity electrode Cz change condition.	.51	[0.161,	.746]
Ramos-Loyo et al. (2021)	11	24.7; 4.81	100%	.454	1410000000000	Symptomatology BPD electrode Cz neutral condition.	.61	[0.016,	.886]
						Symptomatology BPD electrode Cz pleasant condition.	.85	[0.510,	.960]
						Symptomatology BPD electrode Cz unpleasant condition.	.73	[0.232,	.925]
Stewart et al. (2019)	33	17.2; 1.76	100%	.397	25460000000000	Impulsivity.	.42	[0.090,	.667]
Izurieta et al. (2016)	33	26.7; 6.0	100%	.317	4700000000000	Anger suppression.	.40	[0.066,	.654]
Weinbrecht et al. (2018)	29	27.8; 5.0	86%	.317	4700000000000	Social processing inclusion.	.28	[−0.096,	.586]

Note: nBPD = BPD sample; Age (M; SD) = mean and standard deviation of the age of the sample; % Female = % of female in the BPD sample; GINI = Inequality Index; GDP = Gross Domestic Product; r = correlation coefficient.

Table 2. Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies.

ID	Authors	Criteria														Score	Quality rating
		Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Q5	Q6	Q7	Q8	Q9	Q10	Q11	Q12	Q13	Q14
1	Endrass et al. (2016)	1	1	1	.5	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	1	6.5	Fair
2	Izurieta et al. (2016)	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	1	6	Fair
3	Ramos-Loyo et al. (2021)	1	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	1	7	Good
4	Stewart et al. (2019)	1	1	1	.5	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	1	6.5	Fair
5	Weinbrecht et al. (2018)	1	1	1	.5	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	1	6.5	Fair
6	Xi et al. (2021)	1	1	1	.5	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	1	6.5	Fair

Note: Ratings were conducted in accordance with the NIH quality assessment tool.

Figure 2. Forest plot for the P300 event-related potential and borderline personality disorder symptoms meta-analysis.

Table 3. Meta-analysis results

		REM								Heterogeneity tests			Publication bias
		rZ	r	SE	p	IC (95%)		IP (95%)
k	n					Lower	Upper	Lower	Upper	Q	p	I^2	FsN	(5*k + 10)	ZEgger	p
10	151	.534	.489	.073	.000	.373	.590	.373	.590	8.422	.492	.010	210	60	2.503	.012

Note: k = number of included studies; n = sample; rz = z-valued estimator; r = correlation coefficient estimator; SE = standard error; p = level of significandce;

IC = confidence intervals; PI = pdrediction interval; Q = Cochran's Q; I² = heterogeneity index; FsN = Fail – safe N of Rosenthal; Z_Egger= Egger test.

Figure 3. Funnel plot for the P300 event-related potential and borderline personality disorder symptoms meta-analysis.

Figure 4. Bubble plot for the P300 event-related potential and borderline personality disorder symptoms meta-regression with Gini as a moderator.

Table 4. Meta-regression results.

			MEM					Heterogeneity tests			Publication bias
						IC (95%)
k	n	Mod	Estimate	SE	pMod	Lower	Upper	Q	p	I^2	FsN	(5*k + 10)	ZEgger	p
10	151	Sex (female)	-.095	.303	.753	-.668	.498	3.149	.790	.000	210	60	1.890	.059
		Gini	3.419	1.616	.344	.251	6.587
		GDP	.000	.000	.126	.000	.000

Note: k = number of included studies; n = sample; Mod = moderator; Estimate = moderator estimate; SE = standard error; p_Mod: level of significance moderator;

IC = confidence intervals; Q = Cochran's Q; I² = heterogeneity index; FsN = Fail – safe N; Z_Egger= Egger test.

Endrass, T., Schuermann, B., Roepke, S., Kessler, S., & Kathmann, N. (2016). Reduced risk avoidance and altered neural correlates of feedback processing in patients with borderline personality disorder. Psychiatry Research, 243, 14–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2016.06.016

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Xi, C., Liu, Z., Zhong, M., Yang, H., Peng, W., & Yi, J. (2021). Impaired set-shifting in drug-naïve patients with borderline personality disorder: An event-related potentials study. Journal of Affective Disorders, 280, 64–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.10.074

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ramos-Loyo, J., Juárez, C., Llamas, L., Angulo, A., Romo, R., & Vélez, H. (2021). Inhibitory control under emotional contexts in women with borderline personality disorder: An electrophysiological study. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 132, 182–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2020.10.014

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Stewart, J., Singleton, P., Benau, E., Foti, D., Allchurch, H., Kaplan, C., Aguirre, B., & Auerbach, R. (2019). Neurophysiological activity following rewards and losses among female adolescents and young adults with borderline personality disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 128(6), 610–621. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000439

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Izurieta, N., Oelkers-Ax, R., Nagy, K., Mancke, F., Bohus, M., Herpertz, S., & Bertsch, K. (2016). Time course of facial emotion processing in women with borderline personality disorder: An ERP study. Journal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience, 41(1), 16–26. https://doi.org/10.1503/jpn.140215

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Weinbrecht, A., Niedeggen, M., Roepke, S., & Renneberg, B. (2018). Feeling excluded no matter what? Bias in the processing of social participation in borderline personality disorder. NeuroImage: Clinical, 19, 343–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2018.04.031

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in ‘Mendeley Data’ at http://doi.org/10.17632/m69dtg9vb6.1.