ArticlePsychiatry investigation2025
Effectiveness of Non-Pharmacological Interventions on Gaming Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Article in Psychiatry investigation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effectiveness of Interventions for Internet, Smartphone, and Gaming Addictions: Umbrella Review and Meta-Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on problematic video game use and gaming disorder in adolescents and young adults.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Review
- Preliminary Outcomes of a Five-Session Motivation-Centered Program for Internet Gaming Disorder: A Completer Analysis of a Randomized Trial.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Effectiveness of non-invasive interventions for internet gaming disorder: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.World journal of psychiatry · 2025Article
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
objectiveNon-pharmacological interventions (NPIs) are effective in treating gaming disorder (GD). However, studies have not comprehensively evaluated the most effective NPIs. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of NPIs on the prevention and reduction of GD in the general population with GD.
methodsWe searched five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, PsycINFO, and CINAHL) for English-language randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published till May 12, 2024, using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Two independent reviewers selected studies, extracted data, and assessed quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (RoB2). Meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effect model, with effect sizes calculated using Hedges's g and heterogeneity assessed using I2 statistics.
resultsA total of 18 RCTs involving 1,950 participants were included. The NPIs included psychotherapy, behavioral interventions, and other strategies. The pooled analysis showed a significant reduction in GD severity (Hedges's g=-0.82; 95% confidence interval, -1.23 to -0.52; I2=90.36%). Psychotherapy, particularly cognitive-behavioral therapy, showed the most substantial effect (10 studies, 1,036 participants; Hedges's g=-1.34). Behavioral interventions (4 studies, 456 participants) and prevention-focused interventions (6 studies, 1,164 participants) had smaller but positive effects. Subgroup analyses revealed greater effectiveness of treatment interventions in adults than in adolescents. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these results despite high heterogeneity (I2=90.36%).
conclusionNPIs, particularly psychotherapy, are effective in reducing GD severity. However, more high-quality RCTs are needed robust, evidence-based treatment guidelines.
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.