Dataset Information

Evaluating the quality of evidence for gaming disorder: A summary of systematic reviews of associations between gaming disorder and depression or anxiety.

ABSTRACT: Gaming disorder has been described as an urgent public health problem and has garnered many systematic reviews of its associations with other health conditions. However, review methodology can contribute to bias in the conclusions, leading to research, policy, and patient care that are not truly evidence-based. This study followed a pre-registered protocol (PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018090651) with the objective of identifying reliable and methodologically-rigorous systematic reviews that examine the associations between gaming disorder and depression or anxiety in any population. We searched PubMed and PsycInfo for published systematic reviews and the gray literature for unpublished systematic reviews as of June 24, 2020. Reviews were classified as reliable according to several quality criteria, such as whether they conducted a risk of bias assessment of studies and whether they clearly described how outcomes from each study were selected. We assessed possible selective outcome reporting among the reviews. Seven reviews that included a total of 196 studies met inclusion criteria. The overall number of participants was not calculable because not all reviews reported these data. All reviews specified eligibility criteria for studies, but not for outcomes within studies. Only one review assessed risk of bias. Evidence of selective outcome reporting was found in all reviews-only one review incorporated any of the null findings from studies it included. Thus, none were classified as reliable according to prespecified quality criteria. Systematic reviews related to gaming disorder do not meet methodological standards. As clinical and policy decisions are heavily reliant on reliable, accurate, and unbiased evidence synthesis; researchers, clinicians, and policymakers should consider the implications of selective outcome reporting. Limitations of the current summary include using counts of associations and restricting to systematic reviews published in English. Systematic reviewers should follow established guidelines for review conduct and transparent reporting to ensure evidence about technology use disorders is reliable.

SUBMITTER: Colder Carras M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7588081 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluating the quality of evidence for gaming disorder: A summary of systematic reviews of associations between gaming disorder and depression or anxiety.

Colder Carras Michelle M Shi Jing J Hard Gregory G Saldanha Ian J IJ

PloS one 20201026 10

Gaming disorder has been described as an urgent public health problem and has garnered many systematic reviews of its associations with other health conditions. However, review methodology can contribute to bias in the conclusions, leading to research, policy, and patient care that are not truly evidence-based. This study followed a pre-registered protocol (PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018090651) with the objective of identifying reliable and methodologically-rigorous systematic reviews that examine the a ...[more]

PMID: 33104730

Similar Datasets

Project description:Internet Gaming Disorder (IGD) was recently included as a condition for further study in the fifth and latest version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. The present study investigated whether the IGD criteria comprise a unidimensional construct. Data stemmed from a sample of Norwegians aged 17.5 years in 2012 and 19.5 years in 2014 (N = 1258). The study used the Mokken scale analysis to investigate whether the score of the different items on the IGD scale measured a single latent variable and if the scale functions differently for males and females. Correlation analysis was conducted between the scores on the IGD scale (count) and the Gaming Addiction Scale for Adolescents (GASA, categorical), both assessed in 2014. Negative binomial regression analyses were applied in order to investigate how different predictors of mental health assessed in 2012 were associated with IGD assessed in 2014. The Mokken scale analysis showed that all item-coefficients of homogeneity exceeded 0.3 when the whole sample completed the scale and when females completed the scale, indicating that the items reflect a single latent variable. In both cases moderate (H > 0.40) unidimensionality was shown. The item measuring "tolerance" did not exceed 0.3 in the scale when completed by males, indicating that only eight out of nine items reflect a single latent variable when applied to males only. The eight-item scale containing males showed weak (H > 0.30) unidimensionality. The correlation analysis showed a positive correlation between the scores on the IGD scale and the GASA (r = 0.71, p < 0.01) when assessed simultaneously and a positive but lower correlation (r = 0.48, p < 0.01) when assessed longitudinally. Results from the negative binomial regression analysis showed that previous video-game addiction, being male, depression, aggression and loneliness were significant predictors of IGD. The associations were small for all independent variables except previous video game addiction and gender where the associations were large. Although the results from the correlation analysis and regression analysis showed predictive validity of the scale, the results from the Mokken analysis suggest that the IGD scale may not be applied as a unidimensional scale when the tolerance item is included.

Project description:ImportancePatient care should be informed by clinical practice guidelines, which in turn should be informed by evidence from reliable systematic reviews. The American Academy of Ophthalmology is updating its Preferred Practice Patterns (PPPs) for the management of the following 6 corneal diseases: bacterial keratitis, blepharitis, conjunctivitis, corneal ectasia, corneal edema and opacification, and dry eye syndrome.ObjectiveTo summarize the reliability of the existing systematic reviews addressing interventions for corneal diseases.Data sourceThe Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite database.Study selectionIn this study of published systematic reviews from 1997 to 2017 (median, 2014), the Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite database was searched for systematic reviews evaluating interventions for the management of any corneal disease, combining eyes and vision keywords and controlled vocabulary terms with a validated search filter.Data extraction and synthesisThe study classified systematic reviews as reliable when each of the following 5 criteria were met: the systematic review specified eligibility criteria for inclusion of studies, conducted a comprehensive literature search for studies, assessed risk of bias of the individual included studies, used appropriate methods for quantitative syntheses (meta-analysis) (only assessed if meta-analysis was performed), and had conclusions that were supported by the results of the systematic review. They were classified as unreliable if at least 1 criterion was not met.Main outcomes and measuresThe proportion of systematic reviews that were reliable and the reasons for unreliability.ResultsThis study identified 98 systematic reviews that addressed interventions for 15 corneal diseases. Thirty-three of 98 systematic reviews (34%) were classified as unreliable. The most frequent reasons for unreliability were that the systematic review did not conduct a comprehensive literature search for studies (22 of 33 [67%]), did not assess risk of bias of the individual included studies (13 of 33 [39%]), and did not use appropriate methods for quantitative syntheses (meta-analysis) (12 of 17 systematic reviews that conducted a quantitative synthesis [71%]). Sixty-five of 98 systematic reviews (66%) were classified as reliable. Forty-two of the 65 reliable systematic reviews (65%) addressed corneal diseases relevant to the 2018 American Academy of Ophthalmology PPPs; 33 of these 42 systematic reviews (79%) are cited in the 2018 PPPs.Conclusions and relevanceOne in 3 systematic reviews addressing interventions for corneal diseases are unreliable and thus were not used to inform PPP recommendations. Careful adherence by systematic reviewers and journal editors to well-established best practices regarding systematic review conduct and reporting might help make future systematic reviews in eyes and vision more reliable.

Dataset Information

Evaluating the quality of evidence for gaming disorder: A summary of systematic reviews of associations between gaming disorder and depression or anxiety.

Publications

Evaluating the quality of evidence for gaming disorder: A summary of systematic reviews of associations between gaming disorder and depression or anxiety.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets