Cited by 256Impact of Technology on AdolescentsGambling Behavior and TreatmentsSexuality, Behavior, and Technology

Internet gaming disorder: Trends in prevalence 1998–2016

Open access
Feng, Wendy, Ramo, Danielle E., Chan, Steven R., Bourgeois, James A.·2017·Addictive Behaviors

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.06.010

Cites

78 of 78 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Systematic reviews of large-scale studies have reported prevalence rates of problem gaming from 1 to 3%, with slightly higher prevalence rates of 4 to 5% for adolescents.

    “Systematic reviews of large-scale studies 185-188 have reported prevalence rates from 1 to 3%, with slightly higher prevalence rates of 4 to 5% for adolescents.”

    From Emerging experience with selected new categories in the <scp>ICD</scp>‐11: complex <scp>PTSD</scp>, prolonged grief disorder, gaming disorder, and compulsive sexual behaviour disorder (2022) · cites this paper as [186]

    The Results (page unavailable) report an average prevalence of 4.7% across reviewed studies, most of which were school-based, broadly supporting the 4–5% figure. They do not give a separate adolescent estimate or a general prevalence estimate of 1–3%. The Discussion (page unavailable) cautions that the school-heavy samples limit generalizability to the wider population. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 80 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Feng, W., Ramo, D. E., Chan, S. R., & Bourgeois, J. A.
Affiliations
University of California, San Francisco (US)
Corresponding author
Feng, Wendy
Venue
Addictive Behaviors
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-12
Volume
75
Pages
17-24
ISSN
0306-4603 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2624846438
Cited by
256
References
80
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 50 · 2020: 40 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 3
FWCI
5.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Addictive Behaviors (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Drug Abuse (K23DA032578)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Gambling Behavior and Treatments
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Sexuality, Behavior, and Technology
Keywords
internet gaming disorder, prevalence trends, online games, internet addiction
MeSH terms
Humans, Prevalence, Behavior, Addictive, Video Games, Internet, Internationality

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review