Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33620735›Full record

SynthesisAddiction (Abingdon, England)2021

A meta-analysis of problem gambling risk factors in the general adult population.

Youssef Allami, David C Hodgins, Matthew Young, Natacha Brunelle, Shawn Currie, Magali Dufour, Marie-Claire Flores-Pajot, Louise Nadeau

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Addiction (Abingdon, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 103 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
103citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

103 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  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. Article

43 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

8 authors.

Youssef AllamiALLY Addiction Consulting, Montréal, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-7609-2405
David C HodginsDepartment of Psychology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-2737-5200
Matthew YoungCanadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-6125-4678
Natacha BrunelleDépartement de psychoéducation, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, Trois-Rivières, QC.
Shawn CurrieDepartment of Psychology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-2666-4206
Magali DufourDépartement de psychologie, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Marie-Claire Flores-PajotCanadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Louise NadeauDépartement de psychologie, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsFew meta-analyses have been conducted to pool the most constant risk factors for problem gambling. The present meta-analysis summarizes effect sizes of the most frequently assessed problem gambling risk factors, ranks them according to effect size strength and identifies any differences in effects across genders.

methodA random-effects meta-analysis was conducted on jurisdiction-wide gambling prevalence surveys on the general adult population published until March 2019. One hundred and four studies were eligible for meta-analysis. The number of participants varied depending on the risk factor analyzed, and ranged from 5327 to 273 946 (52% female). Weighted mean odds ratios were calculated for 57 risk factors (socio-demographic, psychosocial, gambling activity and substance use correlates), allowing them to be ranked from largest to smallest with regard to their association with problem gambling.

resultsThe highest odds ratio (OR) was for internet gambling [OR = 7.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 5.24, 10.99, P < 0.000] and the lowest was for employment status (OR = 1.03, 95% CI = 0.87, 1.22, P = 0.718). The largest effect sizes were generally in the gambling activity category and the smallest were in the socio-demographic category. No differences were found across genders for age-associated risk.

conclusionsA meta-analysis of 104 studies of gambling prevalence indicated that the most frequently assessed problem gambling risk factors with the highest effect sizes are associated with continuous-play format gambling products.

Indexed as

GamblingAdultFemaleHumansMaleRisk FactorsSurveys and QuestionnairesEpidemiologygamblinggambling disordergeneral populationmeta-analysisodds ratioproblem gamblingrelative riskrisk factor

Identifiers

PMID33620735
PMCPMC8518930

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.