SynthesisJournal of global health2026
Animal-assisted therapy on psychological and physical outcomes: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Synthesis in Journal of global health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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: Adults are at heightened risk of anxiety, stress, and depression; animal-assisted therapy (AAT) may serve as an effective approach to promote psychological well-being. In this study, we compared the effectiveness of AAT in improving depression, anxiety, stress, pain, and gait among adults with or without illness. Methods: We systematically searched six electronic databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and Scopus) and included all studies published up to August 2024. We used comprehensive meta-analysis software to complete the quantitative synthesis. We reported pooled effect sizes as Hedges' g with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs), after applying a random-effects model. Furthermore, we assessed heterogeneity using Cochran's Q test and the I Results: From the 13,345 studies identified, 35 randomised controlled trials involving 2391 adults were included. Across diverse populations, AAT was associated with reductions in depression (Hedges' g = -0.403; 95% CI = -0.536, -0.271), anxiety (Hedges' g = -0.661; 95% CI = -1.069, -0.253), and stress (Hedges' g = -1.062; 95% CI = -1.849, -0.275) at post-intervention, although substantial between-study variability was observed. Conclusions: We demonstrated that AAT significantly improves anxiety, depression and stress in adults, but has no meaningful effect on pain or gait. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses indicate that psychological benefits depend on population and intervention characteristics, and are not moderated by age or gender. Registration: PROSPERO: CRD42024570108.
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.