Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35085370›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Loot box engagement: A scoping review of primary studies on prevalence and association with problematic gaming and gambling.

Irene Montiel, Aránzazu Basterra-González, Juan M Machimbarrena, Jéssica Ortega-Barón, Joaquín González-Cabrera

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
10.2field-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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Irene MontielFaculty of Education, Universidad Internacional de La Rioja (UNIR), Logroño, La Rioja, Spain.
Aránzazu Basterra-GonzálezFaculty of Education, Universidad Internacional de La Rioja (UNIR), Logroño, La Rioja, Spain.
Juan M MachimbarrenaFaculty of Psychology, Universidad del País Vasco (UPV/EHU), Donostia, Basque Country, Spain.
Jéssica Ortega-BarónFaculty of Education, Universidad Internacional de La Rioja (UNIR), Logroño, La Rioja, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-8822-5906
Joaquín González-CabreraFaculty of Education, Universidad Internacional de La Rioja (UNIR), Logroño, La Rioja, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-2865-3428
Universidad Internacional De La Rioja · ESUniversity of the Basque Country · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLoot boxes are an increasingly common type of random microtransaction in videogames. There is some concern about their expansion and entailed risks, especially among adolescents. The actual prevalence of engagement with loot boxes among child and adult population is uncertain, and there is still controversy over the nature of their relationship with problematic gaming and gambling.

objectivesThe aims of this scoping review are to summarize the characteristics and findings of published primary empirical studies about the prevalence of engagement with loot boxes and/or their relationship with problematic gaming and gambling, taking in account the type of sample, time frame and measured variables.

methodsThis study follows the Joanna Briggs Institute's "Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews" and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Three academic databases provided 299 articles.

resultsSixteen primary empirical studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. All studies used cross-sectional designs, and most used convenience samples. Twelve study samples were comprised exclusively of gamers, and two were comprised of gamers and/or gamblers. Only six studies included adolescents. The annual prevalence rate of loot box purchases was higher for adult gamers than for adolescents (22.7%-44.2% and 20%-33.9%, respectively), but in studies with general population samples, the opposite was true (24.9% for players aged 13-14 versus 7.8% for adults). In general, the studies suggested a significant positive relationship between engagement with loot boxes and problematic gaming and gambling, but this may be related to the type of engagement (open/purchase/sell), and the characteristics of the study participants (male/female, adolescents/adults, gamers/gamers-gamblers/general population).

conclusionsThis scoping review summarizes the results of recent empirical studies on engagement with loot boxes and discusses how methodological issues may affect their results and interpretation. Recommendations for future research are also provided.

Indexed as

Consumer BehaviorAdolescentAdultBehavior, AddictiveChildCross-Sectional StudiesEmpirical ResearchFemaleGamblingHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrevalenceSurveys and QuestionnairesVideo GamesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID35085370
PMCPMC8794181
OpenAlexW4210773807

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.