| Author, year | Relevant outcome measures | Effectiveness | Attrition and statistical power |
| Gambling disorder | |||
| Armstrong et al. (2020) | Gambling beliefs, gambling intensity (minutes per week gambling, minutes gambling in a typical session, dollars spent per week gambling/in a typical session) | There was no significant difference between the two groups for the assessed outcome measures. | Power: not conducted Attrition: N/A |
| Bücker et al. (2018) | SOGS, PG-YBOCS, PHQ-9 | The intervention led to a significant reduction in depressive symptoms as well as gambling-related symptoms compared to the control group, with moderate to strong effect sizes. | Power: conducted Attrition: 55.7% |
| Bücker, Gehlenborg, Moritz, and Westermann (2021) | PG-YBOCS, GABS, SOGS | Results of the complete cases, per protocol, intention-to-treat, and frequent user analyses showed significant improvements in both but no significant between-group differences. | Power: conducted Attrition: 56.7% |
| Caillon et al. (2019) | GRCS, PGSI, GACS | There was no significant difference between the two groups for the assessed outcome measures. | Power: not conducted Attrition: N/A |
| Caillon et al. (2021) | PGSI, GRCS, GACS | There was no significant difference between the two groups for the assessed outcome measures. | Power: conducted. Attrition: N/A |
| Carlbring and Smit (2008) | NODS | Gambling-related problems were significantly reduced in the intervention group. Treatment effects for the primary outcome in the experimental group, was sustained through to the 36-month follow-up. | Power: not conducted Attrition: 10.1% |
| Casey et al. (2017) | GSAS, SOGS, GSREQ, GRCS | Compared to the WLC, participants who completed I-CBT showed significant reductions in gambling amount, frequency, severity, urge, gambling related cognitions than those in the WLC. In addition, they were more likely to report improvements in gambling refusal. These changes were maintained across the 3-, 6- and 12-month follow-ups. Compared to the active control condition, CBT showed significantly greater reductions in gambling related cognitions, stress, and gambling urges. | Power: not conducted Attrition: 47.70 |
| Cunningham, Hodgins, Toneatto, and Murphy (2012) | amount of money spent on gambling in the past 30 days, number of days in which gambled out of the past 30, and the most money spent on gambling in one day | The intervention and control groups did not significantly differ regarding any outcome variables. | Power: conducted Attrition: N/A |
| Cunningham et al. (2019a) | NODS, number of days gambled in the last 30 days, G-SAS | The intervention and control groups did not significantly differ regarding any outcome variables. | Power: conducted Attrition: 13.4% |
| Cunningham et al. (2019b) | NODS, number of days gambled in the past 30 days | The intervention and control groups did not significantly differ regarding any outcome variables. | Power: conducted Attrition: 53.8% |
| Cunningham et al. (2020) | NODS, number of days gambled in the last 30 days, AUDIT | The intervention and control groups did not significantly differ regarding any outcome variables. | Power: conducted Attrition: 84.0% |
| Dowling et al. (2021) | G-SAS, number of days gambled, and amount lost on gambling activities | Participants in both conditions reported significant improvements in gambling symptom severity, urges, frequency, expenditure across the 24-month evaluation period. However, no significant differences were found between the two conditions. | Power: conducted Attrition: 77.7% |
| Hodgins, Cunningham, Murray, and Hagopian (2019) | Mean days spent gambling per month, NODS, mean dollars spent per gambling day, total dollars lost, and self-rated improvement | The intervention and control groups did not significantly differ regarding any outcome variables. | Power: not conducted Attrition: N/A |
| Jonas et al. (2020) | PGSI, number of days gambled in the past 30 days, highest stake | At the three-month follow-up, participants in the intervention group showed significant changes with small to large effect sizes in all outcomes when compared to the WLC. Email-counselling users had beneficiary results in the severity of problem gambling only. There were no major differences in effectiveness between the two conditions. | Power: conducted Attrition: 53.7%% |
| Luquiens et al. (2016) | PGSI, amount of total deposit in the past 30 days, total amount lost, mean loss per gambling session, total stake, number of gambling sessions, multi-tabling (playing at multiple tables at the same time) | No significant differences were found between groups. | Power: not conducted Attrition: 83.0% |
| Neighbors et al. (2015) | Reductions in gambling frequency, quantity lost and won in the past 3 months, and gambling-related problems | No significant differences were found between groups. | Power: conducted Attrition: N/A |
| Nilsson, Magnusson, Carlbring, Andersson, and Gumpert (2018) | NODS, net losses due to gambling in the last month, TLFB-G | The groups did not significantly differ regarding any outcome variables. | Power: not conducted Attrition: 50% |
| Rodda, Dowling, Knaebe, and Lubman (2018) | G-SAS, frequency of days gambling and money spent gambling (over the past 30 days) and readiness to change | The groups did not significantly differ regarding any outcome variables. | Power: not conducted Attrition: 61.2% |
| Rosen, Weinstock, and Peter (2020) | PGSI, ATGS-8), gambling treatment utilization at 30-day follow-up | The groups did not significantly differ regarding any outcome variables. | Power: conducted Attrition: N/A |
| So et al. (2020) | PGSI, G-SAS, gambling frequency (in the last 30 days), amounts wagered (in the last 30 days) | The groups did not significantly differ regarding any outcome variables. | Power: conducted Attrition: 9% |
| Wittekind et al. (2019) | PG-YBOCS, EIS | Both groups showed a similar reduction in gambling-related symptoms. However, the groups did not significantly differ regarding any outcome variables. | Power: conducted Attrition: 66.6% |
| Yakovenko and Hodgins (2021) | Gambling frequency and expenditure, PGSI | The groups did not significantly differ regarding any outcome variables. | Power: conducted Attrition: N/A |
| Gaming disorder | |||
| He et al. (2021) | Response time to the gaming cues, IGD, BIS | After the modification, the response time of the experimental group to the gaming cues significantly increased, whereas the scores for Internet gaming disorder severity and craving significantly decreased. | Power: not conducted Attrition: N/A |
| Park et al. (2016) | YIAS | The groups did not significantly differ regarding any outcome variables. | Power: not conducted Attrition: N/A |
| Rabinovitz and Nagar (2015) | GAS, subjective current gaming urge, game playing intentions | It was shown that a single session of the experimental condition resulted in a significant decrease in automatic action tendencies to approach gaming cues. However, no other differences were found between the two conditions. | Power: conducted Attrition: N/A |
| Internet use disorder | |||
| Su et al. (2011) | Hours spent online each week, satisfaction with internet use, YDQ | The groups did not significantly differ regarding any outcome variables. | Power: not conducted Attrition: N/A |
| Pornography use disorder | |||
| Bőthe et al. (2021) | Levels of problematic porn use, pornography use frequency, self-perceived pornography addiction, pornography craving and pornography avoidance self-efficacy | The intervention group reported compared to the WLC condition significantly lower levels of problematic porn use, lower pornography use frequency, self-perceived pornography addiction, pornography craving, and higher pornography avoidance self-efficacy at the six-week follow-up. | Power: conducted Attrition: 89.4% |
| Hoarding disorder | |||
| Fitzpatrick et al. (2018) | SI-R, SCI | The groups did not significantly differ regarding any outcome variables. | Power: not conducted Attrition: 50% |
| Muroff et al. (2010) | SI-R, CIR, CGI | Significant improvements over 6 months on SIR, CIR, and CGI compared to the WLC condition. | Power: not conducted Attrition: N/A |
ATSGS-8, Attitudes Towards Gambling Scale; AUDIT, Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test; BIS, Barratt Impulsiveness Scale; CBT, Cognitive behavior therapy; CGI, Global improvement in hoarding symptoms; CIR, Clutter Image Rating; EIS, Eysenck Impulsiveness Scale; GABS, Gambling Attitudes and Beliefs Survey; GACS, The Gambling Craving Scale; GAS, Game Addiction Scale; GRCS, Gambling Related Cognitions Scale; GSREQ, The Gambling Refusal Self-Efficacy Questionnaire; G-TLFB, Gambling-Timeline Followback; IGD, internet gaming disorder scale; NODS, National Opinion Research Center DSM Screen for Gambling Problems; GSAS, The Gambling Symptom Assessment Scale; PG-YBOCS, Pathological Gambling Adaptation of the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale PHQ-9, Patient Health Questionnaire; PGSI, problem Gambling Severity Index.
PG-YBOCS, Pathological Gambling Adaptation of Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale; SCI, Saving Cognitions Inventory; SI-R, Saving Inventory—Revised; SOGS, the South Oaks Gambling Screen; WLC, waitlist control; YDQ, Young Diagnostic Questionnaire; YIAS, Young's Internet Addiction Scale.