Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42747891›Full record

SynthesisJournal of behavioral addictions2026

Psychological interventions for harmful gambling: Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Odette Megnin-Viggars, Ifigeneia Mavranezouli, Beatrice C Downing, Nicky J Welton, Anja Fricke, Jennifer Francis, Tim Reeves, Stephen Pilling, Henrietta Bowden-Jones, Barbara J Sahakian and 4 more

Abstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-AnalysisReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Odette Megnin-Viggars1Centre for Outcomes Research and Effectiveness, Research Department of Clinical, Educational, and Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2152-0721
Ifigeneia Mavranezouli1Centre for Outcomes Research and Effectiveness, Research Department of Clinical, Educational, and Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9095-3566
Beatrice C Downing2Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7106-1033
Nicky J Welton2Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2198-3205
Anja Fricke3National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Manchester, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7261-4525
Jennifer Francis3National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Manchester, UK.
Tim Reeves3National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Manchester, UK.
Stephen Pilling1Centre for Outcomes Research and Effectiveness, Research Department of Clinical, Educational, and Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7361-8202
Henrietta Bowden-Jones4NHS England, National Advisor on Gambling Harms, UK, National Problem Gambling Clinic & National Centre for Gaming Disorders, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9314-3697
Barbara J Sahakian5Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7352-1745
Mohammad S Rahman6NHS Nottingham and Nottinghamshire Integrated Care Board, Nottingham, UK.
Robert Dawson7NECA, Tyne and Wear, UK.
André Geel8Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Matthew Gaskell9NHS Northern Gambling Service, Leeds & York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Leeds, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Cognitive Behavioral TherapyGamblingPsychosocial InterventionHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as Topicclinical guidelinesgamblingnetwork meta-analysispsychological interventionssystematic review

Identifiers

PMID42747891
PMCPMC13678395

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.