Trial reportJournal of behavioral addictions2025
Computerized cognitive training for problem gambling: A randomized controlled trial (TRAIN-online).
Trial report in Journal of behavioral addictions, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Reducing gambling harm through digital self-help intervention: a pilot study in mild to moderate gambling disorder.Harm reduction journal · 2026Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Non-face-to-face interventions offer promise, with cognitive training showing potential but inconsistent efficacy in problem gambling. Methods: We conducted a non-face-to-face, parallel, randomized, controlled, single-blinded trial to evaluate training programs in adults with problem gambling (CPGI ≥5). Participants were randomized 1:1 to a web-based cognitive training program targeting inhibition unrelated to addiction cues or a control program on visuo-spatial functioning. Both programs benefited from weekly phone calls to support engagement and transferability to daily life. A mixed community and out-patient sample was recruited at the national-level. The primary outcome was change in CPGI at week 6. Secondary outcomes were change in impulsivity, gambling behavior and quality of life at 6 and 14 weeks. Results: 187 participants were screened, with 185 randomized: 93 to intervention and 92 to control. No significant differences were found between groups for any outcome. Mean PGSI change at 6 weeks was -2.75, 95% CI [-12.95; 7.44] in the experimental arm versus -2.44, 95% CI [-13.52; 8.64] in controls, p = 0.76. 34% of participants were classed as no longer problem gamblers at week 14. Intervention acceptability was moderate, with 21 participants (22.58%) in the experimental group, and 32 (34.78%) controls never accessing the platform (p = 0.07). Conclusions: Further research is needed to optimize cognitive interventions in problem gambling, to improve engagement and to demonstrate their added value beyond minimal intervention. For a number of problem gamblers, minimal telephone interventions appeared to be sufficient to reduce gambling. Objective account-based gambling data will provide valuable insights into long-term and objective effects.
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.