Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22644097›Full record

SynthesisJournal of gambling studies2013

Attentional bias in problem gambling: a systematic review.

Audhild Hønsi, Rune Aune Mentzoni, Helge Molde, Ståle Pallesen

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of gambling studies, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

34 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. A Scoping Review of Cognitive Bias in Internet Addiction and Internet Gaming Disorders.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Audhild HønsiDepartment of Psychosocial Science, University of Bergen, Christiesgt 12, 5020, Bergen, Norway.
Rune Aune Mentzoni
Helge Molde
Ståle Pallesen

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Attentional bias has been the subject of extensive empirical investigation in connection with chemical addictions, and it has been demonstrated in users of several different substances. The findings show that substance users seem to notice and attend to substance-related stimuli more readily than non-substance-related stimuli. Less is known, however, about attentional bias in pathological gambling. This systematic review investigates the existing empirical evidence on attentional bias in problem and pathological gamblers. Eleven studies were identified and evaluated following a literature search. Key findings are that problem and pathological gamblers seem to exhibit attentional bias toward gambling-related stimuli across different measuring paradigms, although some negative findings were reported. Recommendations aimed at improving research on this topic include better validation of measures, the inclusion of manipulations of craving level, and adding variations in gambling severity as a variable, as well as gambling preference. Research on therapeutic procedures aimed at reducing attentional bias is also recommended.

Indexed as

AttentionBehavior, AddictiveEmpirical ResearchGamblingHumans

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.