MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385715892 · doi:10.30773/pi.2022.0297

A Systematic Review of Pharmacological Treatments for Internet Gaming Disorder

2023· review· en· W4385715892 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychiatry Investigation · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicImpact of Technology on Adolescents
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCINAHLMedicineAddictionClinical trialMEDLINEPsycINFOPsychological interventionPsychiatryRandomized controlled trialClinical psychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Internet gaming disorder (IGD) is an increasingly common behavioral addiction, with an estimated global prevalence of 3%. A variety of pharmacological treatments have been used to treat IGD, yet no review to date has synthesized clinical trials evaluating their efficacy. This systematic review therefore synthesized the literature reporting on clinical trials of pharmacological treatments for IGD. METHODS: We reviewed articles from MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed Central, CINAHL, and PsycINFO that were published as of March of 2022. A total of 828 articles were retrieved for review and 12 articles were included, reporting on a total of 724 participants. RESULTS: Most participants were male (98.6%), and all were currently living in South Korea. The most common drugs used to treat IGD were bupropion, methylphenidate, and a range of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. The Young Internet Addiction Scale was the most frequently used to measure gaming-related outcomes. All studies reported reduced symptoms of IGD from pre- to post-treatment. Across all clinical trials, IGD symptom reductions following the administration of pharmacological treatments ranged from 15.4% to 51.4%. A risk of bias assessment indicated that only four studies had a low risk of bias. CONCLUSION: Preliminary results suggest that a wide array of pharmacological interventions may be efficacious in the treatment of IGD. Future studies using double-blind randomized controlled trial designs, recruiting larger and more representative samples, and controlling for psychiatric comorbidities are needed to better inform understanding of pharmacological treatments for IGD.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.345 · 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