Table 5.

Moderator analyses for categorical variables for all types of addictions, and outcomes

		IA		SA		CB
Moderator	Outcome variable	Qbet	p(Q)	Qbet	p(Q)	Qbet	p(Q)
Psychological treatments
Type of psychological treatment (CBT vs. IT vs. other)
	GS	4.24	0.120	4.50	0.105	0.34	0.945
	FR	0.11	0.947	15.67	<0.001a	–	–
Mode of treatment (group vs. individual vs. other)
	GS	0.47	0.792	0.11	0.741b	0.44	0.508b
	FR	0.55	0.761	14.55	<0.001b
Mode of delivery (FTFT vs. SGT)
	GS	9.15	<0.01	0.56	0.453	0.44	0.508
	FR	2.03	0.154	0.76	0.384	–	–
Comorbidity (D/A included vs. excluded)
	GS	0.02	0.898	0.84	0.360	0.00	1.00
	FR	1.13	0.289	0.00	1.00	–	–
Data analysis (completer vs. ITT)c
	GS	0.30	0.586	0.99	0.320	0.007	0.933
	FR	0.09	0.771	0.00	1.00	–	–
EPHPP (1 = strong vs. 2 = moderate vs. 3 = weak internal validity)d
	GS	1.14	0.285	2.24	0.134	0.02	0.903
	FR	1.94	0.164	0.53	0.466	–	–
Culture (Asian vs. Western countries)
	GS	0.54	0.461	–	–	–	–
	FR	0.58	0.447	–	–	–	–
IA type (global IA vs. IGD vs. other)
	GS	1.63	0.653	–	–	–	–
	FR	4.21	0.122	–	–	–	–
Pharmacological treatments e
Type of pharmacological treatment (AD vs. mixed or other)
	GS	5.62	<0.05f	0.09	0.765	0.65	0.421g
Comorbidity (D/A included vs. excluded)
	GS	0.73	0.392	–h	–h	0.22	0.642
Data analysis (completer vs. ITT)
	GS	0.00	1.00	0.76	0.383	4.89	<0.05
EPHPP (1 = strong vs. 2 = moderate vs. 3 = weak internal validity)d
	GS	0.47	0.493	–h	–h	2.52	0.112
Culture (Asian vs. Western countries)
	GS	7.32	<0.01	–	–	–	–
IA type (global IA vs. IGD vs. other)
	GS	7.32	<0.01i	–	–	–	–
Combined treatments e
Type of pharmacological treatment (AD vs. mixed or other)
	GS	0.83	0.362j	–	–	–	–
Type of psychological treatment (CBT vs. IT vs. other)
	GS	20.81	<0.001k	–	–	–	–
Mode of psychological treatment (group vs. individual vs. other)
	GS	0.29	0.592b	–	–	–	–
Comorbidity (D/A included vs. excluded)
	GS	0.00	1.00	–	–	–	–
Data analysis (completer vs. ITT)
	GS	0.00	1.00	–	–	–	–
EPHPP (1 = strong vs. 2 = moderate vs. 3 = weak internal validity)d
	GS	6.06	<0.05	–	–	–	–
Culture (Asian vs. Western countries)
	GS	0.83	0.362	–	–	–	–
IA type (global IA vs. IGD vs. other)
	GS	6.06	<0.05i	–	–	–	–

Note. A = anxiety; AD = antidepressants; CB = compulsive buying; CBT = cognitive behavioral therapy; D = depression; EPHPP = Effective Public Health Practice Project (quality assessment tool for quantitative studies); GS = global severity; FR = frequency; FTFT = face-to-face treatment; IA = internet addiction; IGD = internet gaming disorder; IT = integrative treatment; ITT = intention to treat analysis; Qbet = homogeneity statistic for differences between subgroups; SA = sex addiction; SGT = self-guided treatment.

^aCBT: g = 0.98; 95% CI [0.83, 1.13]; p ≤ 0.001; IT: g = 0.25; 95% CI [−0.08, 0.58]; p = 0.132; Other treatments (i.e., acceptance and commitment therapy): g = 0.80; 95% CI [0.51, 1.10]; p ≤ 0.001.

^bModerator analysis included only two subgroups (group vs. individual).

^cOnly studies which indicated the type of data analysis were included in the analyses (see Table 1).

^dModerator analysis included only two subgroups (2 = moderate; 3 = weak).

^eModerator analyses on the outcome variable “frequency” were not conducted due to the insufficient number of studies.

^fModerator analysis included only two subgroups (AD vs. other medications [i.e., methylphenidate, atomoxetine]).

^gModerator analysis included only two subgroups (AD vs. other medications [i.e., memantine]).

^hThe results of moderator analyses were not interpreted, because only one study remained in one of the two subgroups.

ⁱModerator analysis included only two subgroups (IA vs. IGD).

^jModerator analysis included only two subgroups (AD vs. mixed).

^kModerator analysis included only two subgroups (CBT vs. other treatments [i.e., education program]).