Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35484700›Full record

ArticleRevista de neurologia2022

[A comparative study of recreational screen time in neurodevelopmental disorders].

M Pons, M Caner, J Rubies, M Carmona, M A Ruiz, A M Yáñez-Juan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Revista de neurologia, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

6 authors.

M PonsHospital Universitari Son Espases, Palma de Mallorca, España.
M CanerHospital de Manacor, Manacor, España.
J RubiesHospital de Manacor, Manacor, España.
M CarmonaHospital Universitari Son Espases, Palma de Mallorca, España.
M A RuizHospital Universitari Son Espases, Palma de Mallorca, España.
A M Yáñez-JuanUniversitat Illes Balears, Palma de Mallorca, España.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDigital screen time has been largely studied in children populations, but few have focused on children with neurodevelopmental disorders. Our main objective was to study the characteristics of use of recreational screens (television (TV) and video games), in children with neurodevelopmental disorders. SUBJECTS AND

methodsWe conducted a case-control study in which children with neurodevelopmental disorders under the age of 6 were compared with controls of the same age range. We analysed TV and video game exposure through a designed questionnaire for parents that included daily time exposure, sociodemographic characteristics, home media environment, sociocultural habits, attitudes and beliefs about TV.

resultsSixty-one individuals with developmental and 153 controls were enrolled. Children with developmental problems spend more time watching TV than controls (124,4 ± 83,4 vs 71,5 ± 47,4 min / day p <0,001), while video game time was similar in both groups (37,6 ± 39, 6 vs 31,7 ± 32,6 min / day p = 0,138). Children with neurodevelopmental disorders began earlier to watch TV than controls. There were no relevant differences between groups in demographics, Sociocultural, environmental and attitudinal and belief variables.

conclusionsChildren with neurodevelopmental disorders start watching TV at an earlier age and consume more screen time than healthy children. Our findings indicate that Children with neurodevelopmental disorders are more vulnerable to screen abuse, and stress the importance to offer anticipatory guidance to their parents.

Indexed as

Neurodevelopmental DisordersVideo GamesCase-Control StudiesChildHumansScreen TimeTelevision

Identifiers

PMID35484700
PMCPMC11502173

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.