Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28816496›Full record

ArticleJournal of behavioral addictions2017

ICD-11 Gaming Disorder: Needed and just in time or dangerous and much too early?

Wim van den Brink

Open access · goldAbstract readComment
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of behavioral addictions, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
20.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 64 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Wim van den Brink1 Department of Psychiatry, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam , Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
University of Amsterdam · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In their debate contribution, Aarseth et al. (2016) strongly argue against the proposal of WHO ICD-11 (International Classification of Diseases, 11th revision) to include Gaming Disorder as a new diagnostic category emphasizing the fact that no consensus exists on the definition and the risk that gaming will be demonized and gamers stigmatized resulting in a tsunami of false positive referrals to treatment. In this commentary, it is argued that gaming is indeed just another relatively innocent recreational activity with only a small minority losing control resulting in gaming-related problems. It is also argued that - despite a lack of full consensus on the diagnostic criteria - there are clear indications that Gaming Disorder is a relevant clinical entity worldwide and that official recognition as a mental disorder is urgently needed to facilitate the further development, accessibility, and reimbursement of the treatment.

Indexed as

Behavior, AddictiveVideo GamesDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental DisordersHumansInternational Classification of DiseasesInternetgaming disorderICD-11stigmatisationtreatmentvalidity

Identifiers

PMID28816496
PMCPMC5700715
OpenAlexW2767358460

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.