SynthesisFrontiers in physiology2026
Cold-water exposure and psychological outcomes in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in physiology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Cold-water exposure (CWE), including cold showers, cold-water immersion, and winter swimming, is increasingly discussed as a behavioral strategy for improving mood, stress regulation, and mental wellbeing, but clinical evidence remains fragmented. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Web of Science were searched from inception to June 6, 2025, with an update in December 2025. Eligible studies included adults exposed to CWE through cold showers, cold-water immersion, or winter swimming. Randomized, non-randomized controlled, cohort, case-control, and single-group pre-post studies were eligible. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects multilevel meta-analyses used standardized mean differences, expressed as Hedges g. Sensitivity analyses were conducted where possible. Results: Thirteen studies including 4105 participants met inclusion criteria. Pooled estimates generally favored CWE for depressive symptoms, perceived stress, wellbeing, and mood or affect, but confidence intervals were wide and several estimates attenuated in controlled-only analyses. Anxiety showed little evidence of consistent benefit. Additional outcomes, including sleep, cortisol, heart rate, and pain, were sparse but generally directionally favorable. Most studies had high, serious, or critical risk of bias. Conclusion: The available evidence does not establish that CWE improves mood, depressive symptoms, perceived stress, wellbeing, or related outcomes. The evidence remains limited, heterogeneous, and at substantial risk of bias, and several estimates became smaller in controlled only analyses. CWE should not currently be regarded as a standalone treatment for psychiatric disorders. Larger controlled trials are needed to clarify clinical relevance, safety, mechanisms, and optimal use. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD420250654531.
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.