Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Borderline Personality Disorder: A Systematic Review of Diagnostic...

The recognition of Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (CPTSD) as a distinct diagnosis in ICD-11 has intensified the need to clarify its boundaries with Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD), given their symptom overlap and shared traumatic origins. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to examine whether CPTSD is distinct from BPD, assess their comorbidity and symptom overlap, identify key criteria for differential diagnosis, and explore therapeutic implications.

A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Seven empirical studies (2015-2025) were included, comprising 2574 adults (mean age 40.4 years; 73.3% women). Methods included latent class analysis, structural equation modeling, and network analysis. The methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated independently by two reviewers using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies.

Findings consistently supported that CPTSD and BPD are empirically distinguishable, though substantially correlated, particularly within the ICD-11 framework. High symptom co-occurrence was observed, with affective dysregulation identified as the symptom most centrally connecting the two symptom networks. Self-concept emerged as the most robust differentiator: stable and persistently negative in CPTSD versus unstable and fragmented in BPD. Shame was a key affective marker of more severe presentations, and trauma severity, rather than diagnostic category, was associated with symptom variation across studies.

CPTSD and BPD are distinct yet frequently co-occurring conditions. Differential diagnosis should focus on self-concept stability, patterns of behavioral dysregulation, and shame. Treatment requires individualized, trauma-informed, and shame-sensitive approaches, with transdiagnostic emotion regulation strategies across presentations. These conclusions should be interpreted with caution, given the predominantly cross-sectional design and methodological heterogeneity of the available evidence.