Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34900906›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in public health2021

Impact of Exposure to Natural and Built Environments on Positive and Negative Affect: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Wenfei Yao, Fei Chen, San Wang, Xiaofeng Zhang

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Wenfei YaoDepartment of Landscape Architecture, College of Architecture and Urban Planning, Qingdao University of Technology, Qingdao, China.
Fei ChenDepartment of Landscape Architecture, College of Architecture and Urban Planning, Qingdao University of Technology, Qingdao, China.
San WangDepartment of Landscape Architecture, College of Architecture and Urban Planning, Qingdao University of Technology, Qingdao, China.
Xiaofeng ZhangDepartment of Landscape Architecture, College of Architecture and Urban Planning, Qingdao University of Technology, Qingdao, China.
Qingdao University of Technology · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is increasing evidence that the natural environment provides substantial benefits to human emotional well-being. The current study synthesized this body of research using the meta-analysis and assessed the positive and negative effects of exposure to both the natural and built environments. We searched four databases and 20 studies were included in the review. The meta-analysis results showed the most convincing evidence that exposure to the natural environment could increase positive affect (standardized mean difference, SMD = 0.61, 95%

Indexed as

Built EnvironmentEnvironmentHumansbuilt environmentmeta-analysisnatural environmentnegative affect (NA)positive affect (PA)

Identifiers

PMID34900906
PMCPMC8655776
OpenAlexW3216636749

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.