Reporting quality standards in gaming disorder treatment evidence: A systematic review

The treatment evidence base for gaming disorder (GD) has grown steadily over the past two decades. A systematic review by King et al. (2017) of 30 studies reported that GD treatment studies tended to favor psychotherapy approaches, but the research was limited by poor reporting standards as assessed by the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) framework. This systematic review aimed to conduct a follow up evaluation of the reporting quality of subsequent GD treatment studies.

A literature search of six databases yielded 51,056 records, which resulted in 31 eligible studies after screening. Each study's reporting quality was assessed using the CONSORT statement, and then these assessments were compared to King et al.'s (2017) review.

This review identified several methodological improvements since 2017: 61 % of studies were randomized controlled trials (vs. 40 % in 2017), 90 % included control groups (vs. 63 %), and follow-up duration increased to 6.1 months (vs. 3.5 months; p = .032). Reporting improved for participant flow (87.1 % vs. 43.3 %; p = .001) and group-level statistics (74.2 % vs. 36.7 %; p = .003), but some areas showed no improvement.

There have been several improvements in GD treatment study design and reporting, including controls, randomization and follow up, reflecting an increasing number of higher quality trials for the condition. Most of the studies with higher reporting quality (i.e., scoring ≥30/46 on the CONSORT framework) were psychotherapy-based. Future research should employ designs with longer follow-ups, broader assessment of outcomes, and standardized ICD-11-aligned tools. Pharmacological treatments, including novel pharmacotherapies for other addictions (e.g., Naltrexone), are underexplored and lack high quality evidence.