ReviewChild and adolescent psychiatry and mental health2026
Global prevalence of internet gaming disorder in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Child and adolescent psychiatry and mental health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- When music matters: how music app use buffers the relationship between boredom proneness, loneliness and Internet Gaming Disorder.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Joint Latent Profile Analysis of BIS/BAS and Self-Control Systems in Gender Differences of Internet Gaming Disorder Among Chinese University Students: The Mediating Role of Anxiety and Depression in a Cross-Sectional Study.Psychology research and behavior management · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInternet Gaming Disorder (IGD) has emerged as a significant behavioral concern among youth, yet global prevalence estimates remain inconsistent due to methodological variability. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the global pooled prevalence of IGD in children and adolescents.
methodsFollowing PRISMA 2020 guidelines and prospective registration in PROSPERO (CRD420251156483) prior to data extraction and analysis, comprehensive searches were conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and PsycINFO up to September 2025. Eligible observational studies assessed IGD prevalence in individuals aged 6-18 years using standardized diagnostic instruments based on DSM-5 or ICD-11 criteria. A random-effects meta-analysis (DerSimonian and Laird method) with Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation was used to pool prevalence estimates. Between-study heterogeneity was quantified using the I² statistic, and publication bias was assessed using funnel plot asymmetry and Egger's regression test.
resultsNineteen studies involving 251,037 participants and 26,868 IGD cases met the inclusion criteria. The pooled global prevalence of IGD among children and adolescents was 10% (95% CI: 6-15%). Individual study estimates ranged from approximately 1% in some European populations to over 25% in studies conducted in Middle Eastern and Latin American settings. Heterogeneity was extreme (I² = 99.7%), and smaller studies tended to report higher prevalence.
conclusionsApproximately one in ten children and adolescents worldwide meet criteria for IGD, underscoring its growing significance as a global mental health concern. Given the substantial heterogeneity observed, the pooled estimate should be interpreted as an average across diverse contexts rather than a uniform global rate. These findings highlight the need for standardized diagnostic criteria, culturally sensitive preventive interventions, and early identification strategies to mitigate long-term psychosocial impact.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.