MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4383682804 · doi:10.1080/10550887.2023.2229725

Pharmacotherapy and gambling disorder: a narrative review

2023· review· en· W4383682804 on OpenAlexaff
Rezkalla Farkouh, Sophie Audette-Chapdelaine, Magaly Brodeur

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Addictive Diseases · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookeUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPharmacotherapyEscitalopramTopiramateSystematic reviewMedicinePsychiatryMEDLINENaltrexoneRandomized controlled trialModafinilPsychologyInternal medicineAntidepressant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Gambling disorder (GD) is a psychiatric disorder classified in the DSM-5 as a non-substance-related and addictive disorder with extensive health and socioeconomic impacts. Its chronic and high-relapsing nature makes it essential to find treatment strategies that improve functioning and reduce impairment associated with it. The purpose of this narrative review is to evaluate and summarize the available evidence on the effectiveness and safety of pharmacotherapy in GD.Methods An electronic literature search of Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central was conducted to identify systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and reviews on pharmacological interventions in patients with gambling disorder. A similar search of these databases and of Prospero, Clinicaltrials.gov, and Epistemonikos was conducted to identify clinical trials that were published since 2019.Results The initial search identified 1925 articles. After screening and duplicate removal, 18 articles were included in the review (11 studies were systematic reviews and meta-analyses, 6 were reviews, and 1 was an open-label trial). Eight pharmacological agents (naltrexone, nalmefene, paroxetine, fluvoxamine, citalopram, escitalopram, lithium, and topiramate) that were studied in randomized controlled trials and open-label trials showed small to moderate effect sizes in reducing GD symptoms in some studies during post-hoc analyses.Conclusion The overall sum of evidence in the literature on the use of pharmacotherapy in GD is conflicting and inconclusive. Some studies have shown that pharmacotherapy’s role in GD is promising, especially when the choice of the agent is guided by comorbid psychiatric disorders. However, significant limitations exist in the study designs, which need to be addressed in future research on the topic. Conducting future and more rigorous trials that address the limitations in the existing literature is necessary to establish more accurate efficacy data on the use of pharmacotherapy in this population.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.207
GPT teacher head0.534
Teacher spread0.327 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Addictive DiseasesSame topicGambling Behavior and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207