ArticleJournal of behavioral addictions2024
Rethinking cutoff values for the South Oaks Gambling Screen: Sex-specific insights and DSM-5 severity adjustments in Gambling Disorder assessment.
Article in Journal of behavioral addictions, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and aims: The South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS) is a commonly used tool for screening potential gambling problems. The SOGS score has been found to be correlated with the DSM-5 criteria for Gambling Disorder (GD). However, one of its main limitations is the high rate of false positives. The objective of this study was to establish more accurate cutoff points for the SOGS based on the DSM-5 criteria and severity levels, taking into account sex-specific samples. Additionally, we aimed to validate these cutoff points using external measures. Methods: The study sample comprised 4.516 patients (398 women and 4,118 men) who sought treatment for GD. Of these patients, 4.203 met the DSM-5 criteria for GD, while 313 did not meet the threshold for GD diagnosis. Results: The recommended cutoff value for the SOGS is eight for men (Sensitivity (Se): 82.9%, Specificity (Sp): 86.2%) and seven for women (Se: 85.6%, Sp: 77.4%). For moderate severity of GD, the cutoff points are nine for men (Se: 82.1%, Sp: 82.0%) and eight for women (Se: 86.3%, Sp: 73.3%), while for severe cases of GD, the cutoff point is ten for both sexes (Se: 83.0%, Sp: 56.7% for men; Se: 80.0%, Sp: 77.4% for women). These cutoff values are validated by evidence of worse psychopathological states, more dysfunctional personality traits, and risky behaviours commonly associated with GD. Discussion and Conclusions: These findings support adjusting the reference values for the SOGS to eight in males and seven in females to enhance the classification of individuals potentially experiencing GD. The use of higher cutoff values has significant implications for clinical and research purposes, enabling a more precise assessment of the diagnosis and severity of GD.
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.