SynthesisFrontiers in psychiatry2025
Comparative efficacy of psychological interventions for internet gaming disorder: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Off-Label Medications and Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation (NIBS) in the Treatment of Internet Gaming Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Addictive behaviors reports · 2026Review
- Psychometric properties of the Arabic Internet Gaming Disorder Scale (IGDS9-SF) and a brief anger screener.BMC psychology · 2026Article
- Internalizing and externalizing pathways to internet gaming disorder: the roles of anger and social anxiety.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study employed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of standalone psychological interventions for internet gaming disorder in randomized controlled trials. It further compared the effectiveness of psychological interventions across domestic and international studies, various intervention modalities, and different intervention durations. The goal is to provide empirical support for optimizing intervention strategies. Methods: A computerized search was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials on psychological interventions for gaming addiction published between 2015 and 2025 in EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, PubMed, CNKI, VIP, and Wanfang databases. Two researchers independently assessed the quality of the included studies and extracted relevant data. Meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.4 and Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Version 3. Subgroup analyses were performed with region, intervention modality, and intervention duration as moderator variables. A random-effects model was used to estimate the overall effect size. Heterogeneity among studies and publication bias were assessed. Results: In total, six studies were included, involving 372 participants. The results of the meta-analysis indicate that psychological interventions can alleviate symptoms of internet gaming disorder (SMD = -0.06, 95%CI: -0.99 to -0.20, P = 0.003). Subgroup analyses revealed that domestic psychological interventions (SMD = -0.89, 95%CI:-1.25 to -0.52, P < 0.00001), offline interventions (SMD = -0.67, 95%CI: -1.17 to -0.17, P = 0.008), and short-term interventions (SMD = -0.82, 95%CI: -1.27 to -0.37, P = 0.0004) were more effective in treating internet gaming disorder. Conclusions: Psychological interventions demonstrated significant therapeutic effects on internet gaming disorder; Specifically, domestic psychological interventions, offline interventions, and short-term interventions demonstrated superior efficacy compared to foreign interventions, online interventions, and long-term interventions, respectively. However, due to the limited number of included studies and substantial heterogeneity, meta-regression was not conducted; instead, subgroup analyses were employed to explore potential sources of heterogeneity. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD420251023957.
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.