Trial reportScientific reports2025
Randomized controlled trial on the efficacy of forest walking compared to urban walking in enhancing mucosal immunity.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Nature-based and technology-assisted exercise for cognitive and mobility outcomes in older adults: a systematic review of randomized trials.BMC geriatrics · 2026Pooled it
- Forest Bathing (Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Potential preventive effects of forest bathing/Shinrin-yoku on depressive symptoms: a narrative review of mechanistic evidence.Environmental health and preventive medicine · 2026Review
- Therapist-Guided Versus Self-Guided Forest Immersion: Comparative Efficacy on Short-Term Mental Health and Economic Value.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Green exercise, nature connectedness, and academic burnout: a psychological study based on Chinese university students.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Scientific research on forest therapy's preventive medical and mental health effects has advanced, but the need for clear evidence for practical applications remains. We conducted an unblinded randomized controlled trial involving healthy men aged 40-70 to compare the physiological and psychological effects of forest and urban walking. Eighty-four participants were randomly assigned to either the forest or urban group, with 78 completing 90-min walks and analysis. The primary outcome measured was the change in saliva-secreted immunoglobulin A (sIgA) levels. Evaluating researchers were blinded to the groups, but participants and on-site staff were not. Here, we demonstrate a significant increase in saliva-secreted immunoglobulin A (sIgA) levels in the forest group. Furthermore, forest walking resulted in improved mood, including a reduction in stress hormone levels. In conclusion, mindful forest walking has the potential to enhance immunity and promote health. Clinical trial registration: University Hospital Medical Information Network. Trail registration number: UMIN000045851. Approval date: 25/10/2021.
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.