SynthesisScientific reports2021
A systematic review and meta-analysis on the clinical implications of probability discounting among individuals with Internet gaming disorder.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors Associated With Digital Addiction: Umbrella Review.JMIR mental health · 2025Pooled it
- Impulsivity-related right superior frontal gyrus as a biomarker of internet gaming disorder.General psychiatry · 2023Article
- Profile of Treatment-Seeking Gaming Disorder Patients: A Network Perspective.Journal of gambling studies · 2022Article
- Current Status of Internet Gaming Disorder (IGD) in Japan: New Lifestyle-Related Disease in Children and Adolescents.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Beyond Systematic and Unsystematic Responding: Latent Class Mixture Models to Characterize Response Patterns in Discounting Research.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The significance of probability discounting (PD) among individuals with Internet gaming disorder (IGD) remains unclear. Following the PRISMA guidelines, we systematically searched the PubMed, Embase, and ScienceDirect databases for English articles on Internet addiction that included comparison between individuals with and without IGD as well as probabilistic discounting task as the main outcome from January 1970 to July 2020 using the appropriate keyword strings. The primary outcome was the overall difference in rate of PD, while the secondary outcomes included the difference in PD with magnitude of probabilistic reward and response time of the PD task. Effect size (ES) was calculated through dividing the group means (e.g., h value or AUC) by the pooled standard deviations of the two groups. A total of five studies with 300 participants (i.e., IGD group, n = 150, mean age = 20.27 ± 2.68; healthy controls, n = 150, mean age = 20.70 ± 2.81) were analyzed. The IGD group was more willing to take risks in probabilistic gains but performances on probabilistic losses were similar between the two groups. The IGD group also exhibited a shorter response time (Hedge's g = - 0.51; 95%CI = - 0.87 to - 0.15). Meta-regression demonstrated a positive correlation between maximum reward magnitude and PD rate (p < 0.04). However, significant publication bias was noted among the included studies (Egger's test, p < 0.01). In conclusion, individuals with IGD seemed more impulsive in making risky decisions, especially when the potential gains were expected. Our findings not only supported the use of PD for assessing individuals with IGD but may also provide new insights into appropriate interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.