Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34264408›Full record

ReviewCurrent psychiatry reports2021

Digital Hazards for Feeding and Eating: What We Know and What We Don't.

Konstantinos Ioannidis, Samuel R Chamberlain

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current psychiatry reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

2 authors.

Konstantinos IoannidisDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. ioannik@doctors.org.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1537-5425
Samuel R ChamberlainDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.

Funding

Wellcome Trust 110049
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewWe aimed to accrue recent evidence exploring effects of modern online activities (e.g., Internet use) on feeding and eating disorder symptoms, and related traits. We examined available evidence to ascertain any direct influences from online activities on feeding and eating disorders, thereby shedding light on putative mechanisms by which those influences may occur. RECENT

findingsMany facets of problematic usage of the Internet correlate cross sectionally with eating disorder and related psychopathology. There is evidence to suggest that significant effects do exist in the direction of specific Internet activities contributing to eating disorder symptoms, viewed dimensionally. Putative mechanisms are discussed. However, a significant number of eating disorder phenotypes and Internet-related activities remain under-researched. Specific facets of engagement with the online environment appear to confer risk for feeding and eating problems, evidence being strongest for non-clinical studies using dimensional measures. More research is required to rigorously confirm causal effects, including in patients meeting formal diagnostic criteria for eating disorders. We also highlight the need for high-quality evidence to explore how eating disorder phenotypes are commonly as well as uniquely affected by different online activities. Such research is needed in order that scientific understanding in this area can be translated to protect those most at risk of disordered eating, including through changes in public health approaches and clinical practice.

Indexed as

Anorexia NervosaBinge-Eating DisorderBulimia NervosaFeeding and Eating DisordersHumansPsychopathologyAnorexia nervosaBinge eating disorderBulimia nervosaEating disorderInternet addictionProblematic Internet useSocial mediaSocial networking site

Identifiers

PMID34264408
PMCPMC8280587

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.