Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37416535›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in psychology2023

Dealing with information overload: a comprehensive review.

Miriam Arnold, Mascha Goldschmitt, Thomas Rigotti

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Living publications: How interactive artificial intelligence platforms are transforming research communication.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2026
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  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

3 authors.

Miriam ArnoldLeibniz Institute for Resilience Research, Mainz, Germany.
Mascha GoldschmittLeibniz Institute for Resilience Research, Mainz, Germany.
Thomas RigottiLeibniz Institute for Resilience Research, Mainz, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Information overload is a problem that is being exacerbated by the ongoing digitalization of the world of work and the growing use of information and communication technologies. Therefore, the aim of this systematic literature review is to provide an insight into existing measures for prevention and intervention related to information overload. The methodological approach of the systematic review is based on the PRISMA standards. A keyword search in three interdisciplinary scientific databases and other more practice-oriented databases resulted in the identification of 87 studies, field reports, and conceptual papers that were included in the review. The results show that a considerable number of papers have been published on interventions on the behavioral prevention level. At the level of structural prevention, there are also many proposals on how to design work to reduce information overload. A further distinction can be made between work design approaches at the level of information and communication technology and at the level of teamwork and organizational regulations. Although the identified studies cover a wide range of possible interventions and design approaches to address information overload, the strength of the evidence from these studies is mixed.

Indexed as

information floodinformation overloadinterventionjob designreview—systematic

Identifiers

PMID37416535
PMCPMC10322198

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.