Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31925481›Full record

ReviewSocial psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology2020

Teenagers, screens and social media: a narrative review of reviews and key studies.

Amy Orben

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 224 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
224citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

224 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. What Is Digital Parenting? A Systematic Review of Past Measurement and Blueprint for the Future.Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2022
    Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

164 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Amy OrbenEmmanuel College, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 3AP, UK. aco35@cam.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2937-4183

Funding

Emmanuel College, University of Cambridge College Research FellowshipMedical Research Council MC_UU_00005/9
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIn light of growing concerns about an increasingly digital adolescence, the academic field investigating how digital technologies affect adolescents' psychological well-being is growing rapidly. In the last years, much research has amassed, and this has been summarised in over 80 systematic reviews and meta-analyses. MATERIALS AND

methodsSystematic reviews, meta-analyses and key studies are reviewed to provide insights into the state of current research linking digital technology and social media use to well-being; possible future directions and improvements are discussed.

resultsWhen examining the reviews, it becomes evident that the research field is dominated by cross-sectional work that is generally of a low quality standard. While research has highlighted the importance of differentiating between different types of digital technology use many studies do not consider such necessary nuances. These limitations aside, the association between digital technology use, or social media use in particular, and psychological well-being is-on average-negative but very small. Furthermore, the direction of the link between digital technology use and well-being is still unclear: effects have been found to exist in both directions and there has been little work done to rule out potential confounders.

conclusionsReviewing the last decade of reviews in the area, it is evident that the research field needs to refocus on improving transparency, interpreting effect sizes and changing measurement. It also needs to show a greater appreciation for the individual differences that will inherently shape each adolescent's reaction to digital technologies.

Indexed as

Social BehaviorSocial MediaAdolescentAdolescent BehaviorBehavior, AddictiveComputersCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMeta-Analysis as TopicSystematic Reviews as TopicAdolescentsDigital technology useReviewScreen timeSocial mediaWell-being

Identifiers

PMID31925481

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.