Abstract
A recent meta‐analysis published in Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica (1) investigated the association between reported childhood adversity (CA) and a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder (BPD). This meta‐analysis is particularly instructive because it includes stratified analyses. The meta‐analysis hereby demonstrates that both the type of control group and the type of primary studies play major roles for the effect‐size estimation. However, we would like to provide complementary analyses to this important study. These complementary analyses aim at providing a more comprehensive and more accurate interpretation of the results reported in the meta‐analysis.