ArticleSystematic reviews2016
Correlates of mobile screen media use among children aged 0-8: protocol for a systematic review.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The Relationships between Screen Use and Health Indicators among Infants, Toddlers, and Preschoolers: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Media use and behavioral disorders among Saudi Arabian children.Belitung nursing journal · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChildhood is a crucial period for shaping healthy behaviours; however, it currently appears to be dominated by screen time. A large proportion of young children do not adhere to the screen time recommendations, with the use of mobile screen devices becoming more common than fixed screens. Existing systematic reviews on correlates of screen time have focused largely on the traditional fixed screen devices such as television. Reviews specially focused on mobile screen media are almost non-existent. This paper describes the protocol for conducting a systematic review of papers published between 2009 and 2015 to identify the correlates of mobile screen media use among children aged 0-8 years.
methodsA systematic literature search of electronic databases will be carried out using different combinations of keywords for papers published in English between January 2009 and December 2015. Additionally, a manual search of reference lists and citations will also be conducted. Papers that have examined correlates of screen time among children aged 0-8 will be included in the review. Studies must include at least one type of mobile screen media (mobile phones, electronic tablets or handheld computers) to be eligible for inclusion. This study will identify correlates of mobile screen-viewing among children in five categories: (i) child biological and demographic correlates, (ii) behavioural correlates, (iii) family biological and demographic correlates, (iv) family structure-related correlates and (v) socio-cultural and environmental correlates. PRISMA statement will be used for ensuring transparency and scientific reporting of the results. DISCUSSION: This study will identify the correlates associated with increased mobile screen media use among young children through the systematic review of published peer-reviewed papers. This will contribute to addressing the knowledge gap in this area. The results will provide an evidence base to better understand correlates of mobile screen media use and potentially inform the development of recommendations to reduce screen time among those aged 0-8 years. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42015028028 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.