Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41127851›Full record

ReviewPublic health in practice (Oxford, England)2025

Digital screen exposure in infants, children and adolescents: a systematic review of existing recommendations.

Viola Nuvoli, Margherita Camanni, Ilaria Mariani, Simona Ponte, Michelle Black, Marzia Lazzerini

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Public health in practice (Oxford, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Views of preschool-age children's screen time among mothers with low incomes.Journal of family psychology : JFP : journal of the Division of Family Psychology of the American Psychological Association (Division 43) · 2026
    Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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.

Viola NuvoliUniversity of Trieste, Italy.
Margherita CamanniWHO Collaborating Centre for Maternal and Child Health, Institute for Maternal and Child Health - IRCCS "Burlo Garofolo", Trieste, Italy.
Ilaria MarianiWHO Collaborating Centre for Maternal and Child Health, Institute for Maternal and Child Health - IRCCS "Burlo Garofolo", Trieste, Italy.
Simona PonteWHO Collaborating Centre for Maternal and Child Health, Institute for Maternal and Child Health - IRCCS "Burlo Garofolo", Trieste, Italy.
Michelle BlackDepartment of Public Health Policy and Systems, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Marzia LazzeriniWHO Collaborating Centre for Maternal and Child Health, Institute for Maternal and Child Health - IRCCS "Burlo Garofolo", Trieste, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: This review aimed to synthesise existing recommendations - issued by either United Nations agencies, scientific societies, governmental health authorities, non-profit organisations, or others - on digital screen exposure in infants, children, and adolescents. Study design: Systematic review. Methods: A wide search strategy was utilised - including digital databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science), Google, ChatGPT, reference lists from and grey literature -up to July 2024. Identified documents were categorized by type, issuing institutions, audience, publication year, and age groups. A synthesis of recommendations on screen time quantity was provided, comparing recommendations from the World Health Organization (WHO) with those from other institutions/bodies. Results: Out of 85,425 records retrieved, 41 documents were identified. Of these, 23 were published by scientific societies, 13 by government/health authorities, two by the WHO, and three by non-profit organisations. In relation to digital screen quantity, most documents aligned: i) for children under 2 years, most documents recommended zero exposure (n = 20/22); ii) for children aged 2-5 years, the majority recommended limiting screen time to 1 h per day (n = 17/21); iii) for children over 5 years and adolescents, the most permissive guidelines suggested a maximum of 2 h per day (n = 8/10). Existing recommendations were either equally strict or more restrictive than WHO guidelines. In regard to the quality of digital screen exposure, 10 key points emerged, along with additional guidance for parents, schools, healthcare professionals, researchers, and industry. Conclusions: There is consensus on the need to limit the quantity of digital screen time for infants, children and adolescents and to ensure good quality exposure. This alignment provides a strong basis for governments and other bodies to agree on local recommendations, as well as strategies to improve their implementation in practice.

Indexed as

AdolescentsChildrenInfantsRecommendationsScreen timeSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID41127851
PMCPMC12538403

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.