Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34003860›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2021

A systematic review on nomophobia prevalence: Surfacing results and standard guidelines for future research.

Ana C León-Mejía, Mónica Gutiérrez-Ortega, Isabel Serrano-Pintado, Joaquín González-Cabrera

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

45 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Nomophobia in India: A systematic review and meta-analysis.The Indian journal of medical research · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Ana C León-MejíaDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Education, Universidad Internacional de La Rioja (UNIR), Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-2431-5640
Mónica Gutiérrez-OrtegaDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Education, Universidad Internacional de La Rioja (UNIR), Madrid, Spain.
Isabel Serrano-PintadoDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, Universidad de Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-0122-0756
Joaquín González-CabreraDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Education, Universidad Internacional de La Rioja (UNIR), Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-2865-3428

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMobile phones allow us to stay connected with others and provide us a sense of security. We can work, chat with family and friends, take pictures, buy clothes or books, and even control home appliances. They play such a significant role in our lives that we feel anxious without them. In some cases, the relationship between humans and these communication devices have become problematic. Nomophobia (NMP) is the fear of becoming incommunicable, separated from the mobile phone and losing connection to the Internet. Since this social phobia was coined in the first decade of the XXI century, a growing number of studies have studied it and reported the prevalence of this technology-related problem. However, this research activity has generated mixed results regarding how we assess and report nomophobia and who may be at a higher risk of suffering or developing it.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review of 108 studies published in English and Spanish and collected them in Parsifal. We searched for assessment and prevalence data on nomophobia. Also, we looked at gender and age differences to identify risk factors and see if these differences exist and emerge worldwide.

resultsIn this study, we find that women and younger individuals suffer more from nomophobia. The disparity in reporting the prevalence of nomophobia is enormous since the percentages of "at-risk" participants go from 13% to 79%, and participants suffering from it are between 6% and 73%, being the score in the range of 45.5 and 93.82. Within the group of nomophobic people, moderate cases vary between 25.7% and 73.3%, and severe cases, between 1% and 87%. Such disparity is due to differences in assessment criteria. Females and young people seem to be more vulnerable to nomophobia although methodological disparity makes it difficult to reach definitive conclusions. We conclude our review by recommending some common guidelines for guiding future research.

Indexed as

Age FactorsCell PhoneDatabases, FactualHumansInternet AccessPhobic DisordersPrevalenceResearchSex Characteristics

Identifiers

PMID34003860
PMCPMC8130950

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.