Evidence Hub

Screen Time and Bone Status in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review

de Lamas C, Sánchez-Pintos P, José de Castro M, Sáenz de Pipaon M, Couce ML

Frontiers in pediatrics, 2021

20,420 participants

Abstract

Introduction: Technological advances over the last 2 decades have led to an increase in the time spent by children and youth engaged in screen-based activities, and growing recognition of deleterious effects on health. In this systematic review of cohort and cross-sectional studies, we assess current data on the relationship between screen time and bone status in children and teenagers. Methods: We searched PUBMED and SCOPUS databases for studies of children and adolescents that assessed screen time and bone status, determined by measuring bone mineral content or density, bone stiffness index, bone speed of sound, bone broadband ultrasound attenuation, or frame index. Searches were limited to studies published between 1900 and 2020, and performed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The studies included were evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale. Results: Ten cohort and cross-sectional studies including pediatric population were selected. The combined study population was 20,420 children/adolescents, of whom 18,444 participated in cross-sectional studies. Four studies assessed the effects of total screen time, seven the consequences of TV viewing time, and six the effects of recreational computer use on bone health. Our findings indicate an inverse association between total and weekly screen time and bone health in children and adolescents. In 57% of the studies included also a…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 20,420 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free