ReviewJournal of gambling studies2006
A comment on the utility of prevalence estimates of pathological gambling.
Review in Journal of gambling studies, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Setting criterion thresholds for estimating prevalence: what is being validated?Journal of gambling studies · 2014Article
- The validation of screening tests: meet the new screen same as the old screen?Journal of gambling studies · 2012Review
- A test of the false positive bias hypothesis.Journal of gambling studies · 2007Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The case is presented that researchers interested in policy aimed at treating the pathological gambler need to shift focus to improving the utility of prevalence estimates. It is argued that researchers supplement prevalence estimates with practical and well-defined measures of severity and other predictors and correlates of help-seeking. The dimension of severity is emphasized as one means of providing estimates that are relevant to policy makers when placed in the context of additional measures that improve their meaning and utility. Estimates may then be partitioned along these dimensions to ascertain the proportion of gamblers most likely to need or seek treatment for gambling-related disorders. The recommendations provided are subject to a number of possible objections and are presented in the interest of stimulating further discussion such as the distinction between symptom assessment and the measurement of severity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
16826456What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.