SynthesisJournal of gambling studies2025
Personalized Feedback Interventions for Indicated Prevention of Gambling Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of gambling studies, 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.
- A Brief Virtual Reality Intervention Reduces Gambling Symptoms and Gambling Engagement: A Pilot Study.Journal of gambling studies · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
While personalized feedback interventions (PFIs) are a promising indicated prevention strategy for reducing gambling behavior and gambling harm immediately following intervention, no meta-analysis has examined the durability of these reductions. The current systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine the effect of PFIs immediately following the intervention and in the months following the intervention. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed were searched in January 2024 to identify randomized controlled trials comparing PFIs to standard care or inactive control conditions. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool version 2.0 assessed risk of bias. Correlated, hierarchical random effect meta-analysis was conducted to examine the effect of PFIs at postintervention and follow-up. Eighteen studies representing 9,869 participants were identified. PFIs had nonsignificant, small reductions in outcomes relative to comparison conditions at postintervention (g = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.02]). However, PFIs produced significant, small reductions in outcomes relative to comparison conditions at follow up (g = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.18, -0.02]). Therapist facilitated PFIs (g = -0.18) had significantly better outcomes than non-therapist facilitated PFIs (g = -0.03), and PFIs incorporating motivational interviewing (g = -0.19) had significantly better outcomes than PFIs not incorporating motivational interviewing (g = -0.02). However, there was limited statistical power to estimate effect sizes at precise time intervals over the follow-up period. The field requires more randomized controlled trials with longitudinal assessments to estimate the effectiveness of PFIs for gambling in the months following receipt of the intervention. PROSPERO (CRD42024567384).
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.