Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30995229›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2019

Brief interventions for problem gambling: A meta-analysis.

Lena C Quilty, Jeffrey D Wardell, Thulasi Thiruchselvam, Matthew T Keough, Christian S Hendershot

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
8.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. A Systematic Review on Intervention Treatment in Pathological Gambling.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lena C QuiltyCampbell Family Mental Health Research Institute, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Canada.
Jeffrey D WardellDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Thulasi ThiruchselvamCampbell Family Mental Health Research Institute, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Canada.
Matthew T KeoughDepartment of Psychology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.
Christian S HendershotCampbell Family Mental Health Research Institute, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Canada.
Centre for Addiction and Mental Health · CAUniversity of Manitoba · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBrief interventions have been increasingly investigated to promote early intervention in gambling problems; an accurate estimate of the impact of these interventions is required to justify their widespread implementation. The goal of the current investigation was to evaluate the efficacy of in-person brief interventions for reducing gambling behaviour and/or problems, by quantifying the aggregate effect size associated with these interventions in the published literature to date.

methodsRandomized controlled trials including the following design features were identified via systematic review: an adult sample experiencing problems associated with gambling; an in-person individual psychosocial intervention of brief duration (≤3 sessions); a control/comparison group; and an outcome related to gambling behaviour and/or problems.

resultsFive records compared brief interventions to assessment only control; using a random effect model, brief interventions were associated with a small but statistically significant reduction in gambling behaviour across short-term follow-up periods versus assessment only control (g = -.19, 95% CI [-.37, -.01]). Aggregate effect sizes for gambling problems and long-term follow-up periods were not statistically significant. Five records compared brief interventions to longer active interventions; there was no significant difference between brief interventions and longer active interventions.

conclusionsResults supported the efficacy of brief interventions for problem gambling compared to inactive control in the reduction of gambling behaviour; no differences were found across brief versus longer interventions for both gambling behaviour and problems. While these findings must be interpreted in the context of the limited number of studies and small magnitude of the combined effect sizes, the current meta-analysis supports the further investigation of the public health impact of these cost-effective interventions.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsBehavior TherapyGamblingHumansMotivationMotivational InterviewingPsychotherapy, BriefPublic HealthRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReproducibility of ResultsResearch DesignTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID30995229
PMCPMC6469774
OpenAlexW2937642864

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.