Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40115446›Full record

ReviewPublic health in practice (Oxford, England)2025

Burden of gaming disorder among adolescents: A systemic review and meta-analysis.

Prakasini Satapathy, Mahalaqua Nazli Khatib, Ashok Kumar Balaraman, Roopashree R, Mandeep Kaur, Manish Srivastava, Amit Barwal, G V Siva Prasad, Pranchal Rajput, Rukshar Syed and 12 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
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 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Epidemiology of adolescent gaming disorder: A 6-year population-based longitudinal study (2019-2024).European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  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

22 authors.

Prakasini SatapathyUniversity Center for Research and Development, Chandigarh University, Mohali, Punjab, India.
Mahalaqua Nazli KhatibDivision of Evidence Synthesis, Global Consortium of Public Health and Research, Datta Meghe Istitute of Higher Education, Wardha, India.
Ashok Kumar BalaramanResearch and Enterprise, University of Cyberjaya, Persiaran Bestari, Cyber 11, 63000, Cyberjaya, Selangor, Malaysia.
Roopashree RDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, School of Sciences, JAIN (Deemed to Be University), Bangalore, Karnataka, India.
Mandeep KaurDepartment of Allied Healthcare and Sciences, Vivekananda Global University, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 303012, India.
Manish SrivastavaDepartment of Endocrinology, NIMS University, Jaipur, India.
Amit BarwalChandigarh Pharmacy College, Chandigarh Group of College, Jhanjeri, Mohali, 140307, Punjab, India.
G V Siva PrasadDepartment of Chemistry, Raghu Engineering College, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, 531162, India.
Pranchal RajputSchool of Applied and Life Sciences, Division of Research and Innovation, Uttaranchal University, Dehradun, India.
Rukshar SyedIES Institute of Pharmacy, IES University, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, 462044, India.
Gajendra SharmaNew Delhi Institute of Management, Delhi, India.
Sunil KumarDepartment of Microbiology, Graphic Era (Deemed to Be University) Clement Town Dehradun-248002, India.
Mahendra Pratap SinghCenter for Global Health Research, Saveetha Medical College and Hospital, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Saveetha University, Chennai, India.
Ganesh BushiSchool of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Lovely Professional University, Phagwara, India.
Nagavalli ChilakamNoida Institute of Engineering and Technology (Pharmacy Institute), Greater Noida, India.
Sakshi PandeyCentre of Research Impact and Outcome, Chitkara University, Rajpura, 140417, Punjab, India.
Manvinder BrarChitkara Centre for Research and Development, Chitkara University, Himachal Pradesh, 174103, India.
Rachana MehtaClinical Microbiology, RDC, Manav Rachna International Institute of Research and Studies, Faridabad, Haryana, 121004, India.
Sanjit SahDepartment of Paediatrics, Dr. D. Y. Patil Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre, Dr. D. Y. Patil Vidyapeeth, Pune, 411018, Maharashtra, India.
AbhayM GaidhaneJawaharlal Nehru Medical College, and Global Health Academy, School of Epidemiology and Public Health. Datta Meghe Institute of Higher Education, Wardha, India.
Hashem Abu SerhanDepartment of Ophthalmology, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar.
Shailesh Kumar SamalUnit of Immunology and Chronic Disease, Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, 17177, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: Integrating digital technology into daily life has made video games a primary form of entertainment for adolescents worldwide. Despite their benefits, excessive gaming has emerged as a significant public health issue, recognized as a gaming disorder by the World Health Organization in the ICD-11. This study aims to assess the prevalence of gaming disorders among adolescents through a systematic review and meta-analysis. Study design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: A search was conducted across multiple databases until February 15, 2024. Observational studies that assessed the prevalence of gaming disorder were included. Nested Knowledge software was used for screening and data extraction. The quality assessment was performed using the Joanna Briggs Institute tool. Meta-analysis using a random effect model was used to synthesize prevalence rates. Statistical analyses were performed in R software version 4.3. Results: The meta-analysis included 84 studies covering a diverse geographical scope totaling 641,763 individuals. The pooled prevalence of gaming disorder was 8.6 % (95 % CI: 6.9 %-10.8 %), (I Conclusion: A significant prevalence of gaming disorder among adolescents is observed. With an increasing trend, fostering healthy gaming habits, enhancing awareness, and implementing effective intervention programs are crucial. This emphasizes the importance of global efforts in combating the growing challenge of gaming disorder among adolescents.

Indexed as

AdolescentsDigital healthGaming disorderMental healthMeta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID40115446
PMCPMC11925544

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.