SynthesisF1000Research2024
Greenspace exposure and associated health outcomes: a systematic review of reviews.
Synthesis in F1000Research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Greenspace exposure and associated health outcomes: a systematic review of reviews.F1000Research · 2024Pooled it
- Residential Environmental Composition and Risk of Acute Cellular Rejection After Heart Transplantation: A Multi-Scale Buffer Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Nature-based interventions for people living with dementia and their carers: a scoping review.Frontiers in dementia · 2026Review
- Restorative effects of small urban parks: a multi-method study using eye-tracking and psychophysiological measures in Fuzhou, China.Frontiers in public health · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Numerous systematic reviews and meta-analyses have sought to clarify the relationship between greenspace exposure and health outcomes, but the results are inconsistent. We aimed to synthesise all relevant systematic reviews and meta-analyses on this association. Methods: We searched five databases (PubMed, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature [CINAHL], Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) and conducted a manual reference search for systematic reviews and meta-analyses written in English and published in peer-reviewed journals that clearly defined measures of greenspace exposure and reported health outcomes directly attributable to greenspace exposure. A total of 36 systematic reviews published between January 2010 and December 2020 were identified for inclusion in this systematic review of reviews (PROSPERO: CRD42021227422). The methodological quality and risk of bias of included systematic reviews were evaluated by two independent reviewers. Results: Beneficial effects of greenspace exposure were observed for all-cause and cause-specific mortality, as well as mental health and cognitive function. Ambivalent results were found for cardiovascular and metabolic health, general health and quality of life (QOL), and respiratory health and allergies. Most of the systematic reviews included in the current umbrella review had a low to moderate methodological quality and a high risk of bias. Conclusions: This umbrella review highlights the link between greenspaces and a variety of health outcomes, emphasising the importance of preserving existing greenspaces and integrating additional vegetation into urban areas to maintain public health.
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.