Contrastingly, the subgroup meta-analysis for the CGT, which was utilized in 18% of the included research, revealed a small pooled effect measurement solely. This corresponds to the finding that, of the studies that made use of the CGT, solely a minority (i.e., 44%) found important group differences between the AUD groups and CGs in risky decision-making. The outcomes of the current evaluation due to this fact appear to indicate that the IGT appears extra delicate to the deficits in risky decision-making of adults with AUD than the CGT. In this context, it must be noted, nonetheless, that the confidence intervals of the pooled effect sizes for the IGT and CGT overlap barely, and that the distinction in effect measurement between the two duties is statistically insignificant.