Humans: a single group. Cells, worms or flies and mice: nothing yet.
C, W, M, H: cells, worms or flies, mice, humans. Dark: independent labs found the same change there. Light: one lab or one study. Outline: nothing yet.
Labs are independent when their papers share no last author and no institution.
Against: findings that point the other way from most findings on the same outcome.
2 independent labs in 1 country
1 finding against
Funders: National Natural Science Foundation of China and 2 more
Humans5
What did studies of digital isolation find?
1
Studies of digital isolation measured one outcome, sleep disorders.
Sleep disorders
↔no changein humans1HR 1.11
1 study
Digital isolation was not clearly linked with sleep disorders in humans (longitudinal analysis, validation sample) (HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.91-1.36).
“but the association was not statistically significant in the validation sample after adjustment (HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.91-1.36; P=.30)”
Digital isolation is linked with a higher risk of sleep disorders in humans (HR = 1.21, P = 0.006).
“high digital isolation was associated with an increased risk of sleep disorders in the discovery (HR = 1.21, P = 0.006) and pooled samples (HR = 1.17, P = 0.005)”
Digital isolation is associated with sleep disorders in humans (OR = 1.23, P < 0.001).
“Cross-sectional analyses revealed a higher prevalence of sleep disorders among those with high digital isolation (discovery: 67.03% vs. 59.06%, OR = 1.23, P < 0.001”
Digital isolation is associated with transition from robust to pre-frail in humans (robust at the start of the transition) (HR 1.50, 95% CI 1.42–1.59).
“digital isolation primarily accelerated frailty progression, especially in healthier and younger-old adults (robust→pre-frail: HR = 1.50, 1.42-1.59;”
Humansrobust at the start of the transitionup to 7 yearsn = 32,973
Combined event rates were 7.0 and 7.2 per 100 person-years in isolated and resource-limited groups, respectively, versus 4.9 in the low-need group.Combined event rates were 7.0 and 7.2 per 100 person-years in isolated and resource-limited groups, respectively, versus 4.9 in the low-need group.