ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2016
Possible Biases of Researchers' Attitudes Toward Video Games: Publication Trends Analysis of the Medical Literature (1980-2013).
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- InsuOnline, an Electronic Game for Medical Education on Insulin Therapy: A Randomized Controlled Trial With Primary Care Physicians.Journal of medical Internet research · 2017Trial
- Mental Health Professionals' Views on Gaming to Inform Game-Based Interventions: Qualitative Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR serious games · 2026Article
- A bibliometric analysis of malignant pleural mesothelioma from 2010 to 2023.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- Promoting Exercise Training Remotely.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Serious Games in Health Professions Education: Review of Trends and Learning Efficacy.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2019Review
- Commercial Video Games As Therapy: A New Research Agenda to Unlock the Potential of a Global Pastime.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2017Review
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
backgroundThe study of video games is expanding, and so is the debate regarding their possible positive and deleterious effects. As controversies continue, several researchers have expressed their concerns about substantial biases existing in the field, which might lead to the creation of a skewed picture, both in the professional and in the lay literature. However, no study has tried to examine this issue quantitatively.
objectiveThe objective of our study was to examine possible systematic biases in the literature, by analyzing the publication trends of the medical and life sciences literature regarding video games.
methodsWe performed a complete and systematic PubMed search up to December 31, 2013. We assessed all 1927 articles deemed relevant for their attitude toward video games according to the focus, hypothesis, and authors' interpretation of the study results, using a 3-category outcome (positive, negative, and neutral). We assessed the prevalence of different attitudes for possible association with year of publication, location of researchers, academic discipline, methodological research, and centrality of the publishing journals.
resultsThe attitude toward video games presented in publications varied by year of publication, location, academic discipline, and methodological research applied (P<.001 for all). Moreover, representation of different attitudes differed according to centrality of the journals, as measured by their impact factor (P<.001).
conclusionsThe results suggest that context, whether scientific or social, is related to researchers' attitudes toward video games. Readers, both lay and professional, should weigh these contextual variables when interpreting studies' results, in light of the possible bias they carry. The results also support a need for a more balanced, open-minded approach toward video games, as it is likely that this complex phenomenon carries novel opportunities as well as new hazards.
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.