SynthesisJournal of behavioral addictions2026
Psychological interventions for harmful gambling: Systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Psychological interventions for harmful gambling: Systematic review and network meta-analysis.Journal of behavioral addictions · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and aims: Gambling causes harms for the individual, their families and wider society. Psychological interventions have been shown to improve gambling severity, but their relative effectiveness is not well understood. Methods: Systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of psychological interventions for harmful gambling. Outcomes were gambling symptom severity and gambling frequency (expressed as standardized mean differences [SMDs]). Results: We included 52 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 9013 participants and 14 intervention classes. For gambling symptom severity, group CBT was the most effective intervention (SMD -1.09, 95% credible intervals [95%CrIs] -1.75 to -0.44) followed by individual CBT (SMD -0.56, 95%CrIs -1.07 to -0.07). Waitlist showed increased symptom severity compared with no treatment (SMD 0.96, 95%CrIs 0.47 to 1.46). All other intervention effects were characterized by uncertainty. For gambling frequency, all active interventions showed similar effects to treatment as usual. Discussion: Included studies were of low or very low quality and there was moderate-to-high heterogeneity for the gambling symptom severity NMA. However, threshold analysis suggested that conclusions based on the NMA were robust to potential biases and sampling variation in the included evidence. Bias adjustment analyses did not show evidence of bias associated with small studies or industry funding. Conclusions: Group CBT shows clinically important benefits and should be regarded as the best intervention for harmful gambling. For individuals who decline group CBT, or where this is not possible or suitable, individual CBT shows the next best evidence of benefit.
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.