ReviewHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Can Different Forest Structures Lead to Different Levels of Therapeutic Effects? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Thermal conditions modulate urban forest therapy outcomes: a meta-analytic review.Scientific reports · 2025Pooled it
- Is altitude a determinant of the health benefits of nature exposure? A systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2022Pooled it
- Differential effects of forest environmental perception on psychological well-being: the moderating role of perceived stress in national parks.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Electroencephalography-based psychological and physiological effects of winter virtual forest trail landscapes on youth.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Is forest bathing a panacea for mental health problems? A narrative review.Frontiers in public health · 2025Review
- Targeted health promotion with guided nature walks or group exercise: a controlled trial in primary care.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- An eye-tracking study on visual perception of vegetation permeability in virtual reality forest exposure.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent decades, forests have expanded from natural resources for conservation and production to health-promoting resources. With the growing body of evidence supporting the therapeutic effects of forests, the number of investigations on the relationship between forest characteristics and therapeutic effects have increased. However, quantitative synthesis of primary studies has rarely been conducted due to a limited number of health studies including forest description and high heterogeneity of forest variables. In this study, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the relationship between the forest structure and the therapeutic effect. We systematically searched the studies examining the therapeutic effects of forests with different stand density and canopy density and synthesized the results. As a result of subgroup analysis, we found that stand density modifies the therapeutic effects. Emotional and cognitive restoration showed greatest improvement in low-density forests with a stand density of less than 500/ha and the therapeutic effects diminish as the stand density increases. The impact of canopy density was not found due to a lack of studies reporting canopy density. Although some limitations remain, the findings in this study have great significance in providing the basis for establishing management strategies of forests for therapeutic use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.