ReviewJournal of behavioral addictions2026
Three key lessons learned from over a decade of gaming disorder assessment research.
Review in Journal of behavioral addictions, 2026. 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.
- Overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on problematic video game use and gaming disorder in adolescents and young adults.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Review
- Estimated prevalence of gaming disorder based on ICD-11 and DSM-5 frameworks in a large and representative sample of young Swiss men.Addictive behaviors reports · 2026Article
- From monitoring to intervention: a closed-loop digital health framework for gaming disorder.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since the recognition of internet gaming disorder (IGD) in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and gaming disorder (GD) in the eleventh revision of the International Classification of Diseases, significant progress has been made toward standardizing assessment practices. However, the present paper argues that three key lessons can be derived when considering the advancements in the field over the past decade. Firstly, rather than developing additional instruments, the field would greatly benefit from unifying existing assessment frameworks and establishing a clinical 'gold standard' based on current diagnostic criteria. Secondly, continued development of psychometric assessment alone is insufficient because the field urgently needs a robust theoretical framework that is able to distinguish between excessive and disordered gaming effectively. Without sound a theory, assessment and treatment practices risk ongoing conceptual drift and fragmentation. Finally, despite recent criticisms regarding the use of psychometric instruments and self-report measures, these methodologies remain necessary. While more objective gaming data can be valuable, they also present with important limitations that need to be fully considered. A potential way forward for an effective assessment approach may involve combining both psychometrically robust self-report data with objective data. However, future research must still ensure that assessment instruments undergo rigorous psychometric validation beyond reliability and validity alone. The paper concludes that instead of prioritizing the development of new assessment tools, the field would benefit more from strengthening its theoretical foundation and rigorously evaluating existing diagnostic frameworks and psychometric instruments.
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.