SynthesisFrontiers in psychiatry2025
The efficacy of conventional and technology assisted cue exposure therapy for treating substance use disorders: a qualitative systematic review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neurophysiological and Behavioral Responses to Gambling Cues in Individuals with Internet Gambling Disorder: A VR-EEG-GSR Study.Brain sciences · 2026Article
- Assessing usability and acceptability of a VR digital therapeutic for treatment of substance use disorders.Journal of social work practice in the addictions · 2026Article
- Cocaine Cues Used in Experimental Research: A Systematic Review.Brain sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cue Exposure Therapy (CET) is a behavioristic psychological intervention for treating substance use disorders (SUDs). Recently, CET has been examined in technology-assisted formats to increase intervention efficacy. No systematic review has examined the efficacy of different CET formats across types of SUDs. Objectives: We aimed to examine the efficacy of CET across SUDs and examine the efficacy of non-technology-assisted (NT-CET) and technology-assisted CET (T-CET). Methods: We conducted a systematic literature search in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to June 2024. The efficacy of CET was inspected trough a qualitative synthesis and the quality assessment of all the included studies was performed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials, version 2. Results: Forty-four controlled trials were identified (NT-CET; n=21; T-CET: n=23). Most studies were conducted on alcohol- and nicotine use disorders. No study reported effect sizes on craving, while one study reported a small effect of NT-CET on alcohol consumption at 6- and 12-months follow-up. Compared to control interventions, CET was found more effective in 41% of the studies that examined cravings, and in 57% of the studies that examined consumption. In these studies, there was on overrepresentation of studies that combined CET with cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) or CBT-related approaches. Only one study directly compared the effect of NT- and T-CET alcohol craving or consumption and found no difference up to 6 months follow-up. Among NT-CET and T-CET studies, the proportion of studies reporting significantly better outcomes than control interventions were 17% and 60% for craving, respectively, and 38% and 80% for consumption, respectively. High heterogeneity and risk of bias were found among the included studies. Conclusions: Across the different substance use disorders, most studies found significant reduction in craving and consumption after CET. No conclusions can be made on the efficacy of CET compared to active control interventions, due to limiting reporting of effect sizes. Technology-assisted CET reported significant reduction in craving and consumption relatively more often than conventional CET studies, particularly when delivered in virtual reality. Future high-quality studies are warranted to enable more firm conclusions and quantitative synthesis. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk, identifier CRD42022308806.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.