Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37957284›Full record

SynthesisNature human behaviour2024

An umbrella review of the benefits and risks associated with youths' interactions with electronic screens.

Taren Sanders, Michael Noetel, Philip Parker, Borja Del Pozo Cruz, Stuart Biddle, Rimante Ronto, Ryan Hulteen, Rhiannon Parker, George Thomas, Katrien De Cocker and 10 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Nature human behaviour, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

64 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Parental Knowledge, Attitudes, and Perceived Usefulness of Australian Screen Time Guidelines for Toddlers and Preschoolers.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2026
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

4 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

20 authors.

Taren SandersInstitute for Positive Psychology and Education, Australian Catholic University, North Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. Taren.Sanders@acu.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-4504-6008
Michael NoetelSchool of Psychology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6563-8203
Philip ParkerInstitute for Positive Psychology and Education, Australian Catholic University, North Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Borja Del Pozo CruzDepartment of Sport Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Stuart BiddleCentre for Health Research, University of Southern Queensland, Springfield, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7663-6895
Rimante RontoDepartment of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, Macquarie Park, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3830-8329
Ryan HulteenSchool of Kinesiology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4558-1297
Rhiannon ParkerThe Centre for Social Impact, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2156-3980
George ThomasThe Health and Wellbeing Centre for Research Innovation, School of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6908-7974
Katrien De CockerDepartment of Movement and Sport Science, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-7510-4419
Jo SalmonInstitute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4734-6354
Kylie HeskethInstitute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2702-7110
Nicole WeeksInstitute for Positive Psychology and Education, Australian Catholic University, North Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Hugh ArnottInstitute for Positive Psychology and Education, Australian Catholic University, North Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Emma DevineThe Matilda Centre for Research in Mental Health and Substance Use, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8110-6445
Roberta VasconcellosInstitute for Positive Psychology and Education, Australian Catholic University, North Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Rebecca PaganoSchool of Education, Australian Catholic University, North Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9305-3184
Jamie ShersonSchool of Education, Australian Catholic University, North Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0009-0008-9204-7960
James ConigraveInstitute for Positive Psychology and Education, Australian Catholic University, North Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8816-6229
Chris LonsdaleInstitute for Positive Psychology and Education, Australian Catholic University, North Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2523-5565

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The influence of electronic screens on the health of children and adolescents and their education is not well understood. In this prospectively registered umbrella review (PROSPERO identifier CRD42017076051 ), we harmonized effects from 102 meta-analyses (2,451 primary studies; 1,937,501 participants) of screen time and outcomes. In total, 43 effects from 32 meta-analyses met our criteria for statistical certainty. Meta-analyses of associations between screen use and outcomes showed small-to-moderate effects (range: r = -0.14 to 0.33). In education, results were mixed; for example, screen use was negatively associated with literacy (r = -0.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.20 to -0.09, P ≤ 0.001, k = 38, N = 18,318), but this effect was positive when parents watched with their children (r = 0.15, 95% CI = 0.02 to 0.28, P = 0.028, k = 12, N = 6,083). In health, we found evidence for several small negative associations; for example, social media was associated with depression (r = 0.12, 95% CI = 0.05 to 0.19, P ≤ 0.001, k = 12, N = 93,740). Limitations of our review include the limited number of studies for each outcome, medium-to-high risk of bias in 95 out of 102 included meta-analyses and high heterogeneity (17 out of 22 in education and 20 out of 21 in health with I

Indexed as

ParentsAdolescentBiasChildHumansRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID37957284

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.