Cited by 115Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesAlcohol Consumption and Health Effects

What’s in a Trial? On the Importance of Distinguishing Between Experimental Lab Studies and Randomized Controlled Trials: The Case of Cognitive Bias Modification and Alcohol Use Disorders

Open access
Wiers, Reinout W., Boffo, Marilisa, Field, Matt·2018·Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs

Abstract

Objective Recently, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) redefined clinical trials to include any study involving behavioral or biomedical interventions. In line with a general framework from experimental medicine, we argue that it is crucial to distinguish between experimental laboratory studies aimed at revealing psychological mechanisms underlying behavior and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in clinical samples aimed at testing the efficacy of an intervention. Method As an illustration, we reviewed the current state of the evidence on the efficacy of cognitive bias modification (CBM) interventions in alcohol use disorders. Results A recent meta-analysis "cast serious doubts on the clinical utility of CBM interventions for addiction." That analysis combined experimental laboratory studies and RCTs. We demonstrated that, when studies are differentiated regarding study type (experimental laboratory study or RCT), mode of delivery (controlled experiment or Internet), and population (healthy volunteers or patients), the following effects are found: (a) short-lived effects of CBM on drinking behavior in experimental laboratory studies in students, but only when the bias is successfully manipulated; (b) small but robust effects of CBM on treatment outcome when administered as an adjunct to established treatments in clinical settings in RCTs with alcohol-dependent patients; and (c) nonspecific effects (reduced drinking irrespective of condition) in RCTs of CBM administered…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.15288/jsad.2018.79.333

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wiers, R. W., Boffo, M., & Field, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • University of Liverpool (GB)
Corresponding author
Wiers, Reinout W.
Venue
Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs
Published
2018-05
Volume
79
Issue
3
Pages
333-343
ISSN
  • 1937-1888 (ISSN-L)
  • 1938-4114
OpenAlex
W2800341546
Cited by
115
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 15
FWCI
14.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Alcohol Consumption and Health Effects
Keywords
cognitive bias modification, alcoholism, randomized controlled trials, meta-analysis validity, alcoholism treatment, online intervention, non-specific effects, cognitive behavioral therapy, drinking behavior
MeSH terms
Cognition, Humans, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Alcohol-Related Disorders

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review