Cognitive bias modification in alcohol use disorder and problematic drinking: A revised and updated IPD Bayesian meta-analysis
Author(s) / Creator(s)
Pan, Ting
Zhao, Xiaochang
Bartoš, František
Larsen, Helle
Manning, Victoria
Boffo, Marilisa
Wiers, Reinout W.
Abstract / Description
Background: Recent advances in Cognitive Bias Modification (CBM) for problematic drinking, including Alcohol Use Disorder, alongside methodological refinements, warrant an update of the Individual Participant Data (IPD) Bayesian meta-analysis. This study integrates new datasets, focuses on alcohol CBM, and applies a two-stage IPD framework to examine CBM's effects on cognitive bias, alcohol consumption, and relapse.
Methods: A two-stage IPD Bayesian meta-analysis was performed, supplemented by frequentist sensitivity analyses. The first stage estimated study-specific CBM effects, the second stage pooled these to examine within-study moderators (adherence, addiction severity) and between-study moderators (CBM type, control condition, additional therapy, training congruency, and context).
Results: 23 studies with 8297 participants were included. CBM showed a small unadjusted effect on bias (d = −0.18, 95% CrI [−0.32, 0.00], BF₁₀ = 10.88) and relapse (log OR = −0.26, 95% CrI [−0.38, −0.14], BF₁₀ = 155.07; number needed to treat = 18.7), but not on alcohol consumption (d = 0.003, 95% CrI [0.00, 0.06], BF₁₀ = 0.08). Effects were attenuated after adjusting for moderators. Moderator analyses revealed that face-to-face CBM context (unadjusted and within-study adjusted) and additional psychological therapy (within-study adjusted) were associated with greater bias reduction, and higher training intensity (unadjusted) was related to better relapse prevention. Frequentist sensitivity analyses largely supported these findings.
Conclusions: CBM reduced alcohol-related biases and relapse risk. Although overall evidence was no longer supported after adjusting for moderators, moderator analyses suggest CBM can be effective under specific conditions (e.g., face-to-face delivery, alongside therapy, higher training intensity). These findings underscore the need for refined, context-sensitive CBM protocols in alcohol interventions.
Persistent Identifier
Date of first publication
2026-02-05
Journal title
Clinical Psychology Review
Publisher
PsychArchives
Publication status
acceptedVersion
Review status
peerReviewed
Is version of
Citation
-
Preprint Psycharchive_updated 20260106.pdfAdobe PDF - 1.49MBMD5 : 8f9a10c15958fffe6712e737cba8dcb3
-
There are no other versions of this object.
-
Author(s) / Creator(s)Pan, Ting
-
Author(s) / Creator(s)Zhao, Xiaochang
-
Author(s) / Creator(s)Bartoš, František
-
Author(s) / Creator(s)Larsen, Helle
-
Author(s) / Creator(s)Manning, Victoria
-
Author(s) / Creator(s)Boffo, Marilisa
-
Author(s) / Creator(s)Wiers, Reinout W.
-
PsychArchives acquisition timestamp2026-02-05T15:34:49Z
-
Made available on2026-02-05T15:34:49Z
-
Date of first publication2026-02-05
-
Abstract / DescriptionBackground: Recent advances in Cognitive Bias Modification (CBM) for problematic drinking, including Alcohol Use Disorder, alongside methodological refinements, warrant an update of the Individual Participant Data (IPD) Bayesian meta-analysis. This study integrates new datasets, focuses on alcohol CBM, and applies a two-stage IPD framework to examine CBM's effects on cognitive bias, alcohol consumption, and relapse. Methods: A two-stage IPD Bayesian meta-analysis was performed, supplemented by frequentist sensitivity analyses. The first stage estimated study-specific CBM effects, the second stage pooled these to examine within-study moderators (adherence, addiction severity) and between-study moderators (CBM type, control condition, additional therapy, training congruency, and context). Results: 23 studies with 8297 participants were included. CBM showed a small unadjusted effect on bias (d = −0.18, 95% CrI [−0.32, 0.00], BF₁₀ = 10.88) and relapse (log OR = −0.26, 95% CrI [−0.38, −0.14], BF₁₀ = 155.07; number needed to treat = 18.7), but not on alcohol consumption (d = 0.003, 95% CrI [0.00, 0.06], BF₁₀ = 0.08). Effects were attenuated after adjusting for moderators. Moderator analyses revealed that face-to-face CBM context (unadjusted and within-study adjusted) and additional psychological therapy (within-study adjusted) were associated with greater bias reduction, and higher training intensity (unadjusted) was related to better relapse prevention. Frequentist sensitivity analyses largely supported these findings. Conclusions: CBM reduced alcohol-related biases and relapse risk. Although overall evidence was no longer supported after adjusting for moderators, moderator analyses suggest CBM can be effective under specific conditions (e.g., face-to-face delivery, alongside therapy, higher training intensity). These findings underscore the need for refined, context-sensitive CBM protocols in alcohol interventions.en
-
Publication statusacceptedVersion
-
Review statuspeerReviewed
-
ISSN1873-7811
-
Persistent Identifierhttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12034/17018
-
Persistent Identifierhttps://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.21637
-
Language of contenteng
-
PublisherPsychArchives
-
Is version ofhttps://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.21568
-
Is related tohttps://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.21568
-
Dewey Decimal Classification number(s)150
-
TitleCognitive bias modification in alcohol use disorder and problematic drinking: A revised and updated IPD Bayesian meta-analysisen
-
DRO typearticle
-
Journal titleClinical Psychology Review
-
Visible tag(s)Accepted Manuscript