Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35581995›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in behavioral sciences2022

New challenges in facing cyberchondria during the coronavirus disease pandemic.

Matteo Vismara, Alberto Varinelli, Luca Pellegrini, Arun Enara, Naomi A Fineberg

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in behavioral sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. 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.

Matteo VismaraUniversity of Milan, Department of Mental Health, Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences Luigi Sacco, Milan, Italy.
Alberto VarinelliUniversity of Milan, Department of Mental Health, Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences Luigi Sacco, Milan, Italy.
Luca PellegriniSchool of Life and Medical Sciences, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, United Kingdom.
Arun EnaraCamden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Naomi A FinebergSchool of Life and Medical Sciences, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cyberchondria (CYB) is characterized by excessive online searching for medical information and is associated with increasing levels of distress, anxiety, and interference with daily activities. As the use of digital devices and the Internet as a source of everyday information has increased, particularly during the current coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, so has CYB, becoming an object of interest to clinicians and researchers. The present review will provide an overview of the latest updates in CYB research. Emerging evidence draws attention to various vulnerability factors for developing CYB, including personal characteristics such as female gender, younger age, or a history of mental disorder, as well as engagement in particular forms of online behavior, such as increased use of social media, increased acceptance of online information, and information overload. Additionally, recent studies suggest that CYB may itself act as a mediating factor for increased COVID-19-related psychological burden. However, the data are still very sparse. Knowledge gaps include a universally accepted definition of CYB, severity thresholds to help differentiate nonpathological online health searches from CYB, as well as robustly evidence-based interventions.

Identifiers

PMID35581995
PMCPMC9098916

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.