Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2023 Jan 2;12(1):9-25.
doi: 10.1556/2006.2022.00087. Print 2023 Mar 30.

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of treatment interventions for Internet use disorders: Critical analysis of the methodical quality according to the PRISMA guidelines

Lara Basenach  1 , Babette Renneberg  1 , Harriet Salbach  1 , Michael Dreier  2 , Klaus Wölfling  2
Affiliations
Review

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of treatment interventions for Internet use disorders: Critical analysis of the methodical quality according to the PRISMA guidelines

Lara Basenach et al. J Behav Addict. .

Abstract

Rationale: As a result of concerns about predominantly online behavioral addictions, an increasing number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMA) of treatment interventions for internet use disorders (IUD) are being recorded. This review was designed to (a) systematically identify the evidence base of SRMA and to (b) critically appraise the quality of reporting according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

Methods: Four databases were searched until August 2022 to systematically identify SRMA. PRISMA indicators were evaluated on a three-level response format to obtain an overall score operationalizing the quality of reporting (score range: 0-84). Additionally, the percentage of adherence to the PRISMA indicators was calculated.

Results: Reporting quality of 23 SRMA, comprising 12 systematic reviews and 11 meta-analyses was evaluated. Quality scores ranged from 25 to 77 (M: 52.91; SD: 17.46). Results of the critical appraisal revealed deviations from the PRISMA indicators, including missing information on (a) registration of a study protocol, (b) statistical synthesis methods (c) evaluation of certainty of evidence, and (d) risk of bias assessment. Eleven (47.83%) of the SRMAs partially adhered, and twelve (52.17%) completely adhered to the PRISMA indicators.

Conclusion: This first critical appraisal on the reporting quality of SRMA on treatment interventions for IUD highlights limitations of the evidence base. Inadequate reporting compromises the practical utility and validity of SRMA and may complicate ongoing efforts of consensus on evidence-based interventions for IUD. Future research should focus on sufficient and transparent reporting of the methodological approach.

Keywords: Internet use disorder; SRMA of treatment intervention for IUD; evaluation of reporting quality.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.
PRISMA flow chart of the literature search and selection process
Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.
Distribution of primary research by intervention type and theoretical alignment
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Altman, D. G. (1999). Practical statistics for medical research. Chapman. London: CRC Press. 10.1201/9780429258589. - DOI
    1. American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5 (Vol. 5). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
    1. Augner, C., Vlasak, T., Aichhorn, W., & Barth, A. (2021). Tackling the ‘digital pandemic’: The effectiveness of psychological intervention strategies in problematic Internet and smartphone use-A meta-analysis. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 56(3), 211-213. 10.1177/00048674211042793. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Brand, M. (2021). Verhaltenssüchte: Theoretische modelle. Psychotherapeut, 66(2), 84–90. 10.1007/s00278-020-00486-y. - DOI
    1. Büchter, R. B., Weise, A., & Pieper, D. (2020). Development, testing and use of data extraction forms in systematic reviews: A review of methodological guidance. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 20(1), 1–14. 10.1186/s12874-020-01143-3. - DOI - PMC - PubMed