ArticleiScience2026
Comparing the sleep benefits of Nature-Based Interventions: Evidence from a Bayesian Network meta-analysis.
Article in iScience, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sleep health represents a growing global public health concern, underscoring the urgent need for scalable non-pharmacological interventions. We conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to synthesize comparative evidence on sensory-oriented nature-based interventions (NBIs) for sleep health in adults. Across the evidence network, all intervention categories consistently outperformed conventional care, whereas between-modality differences were generally modest. This suggests that the therapeutic benefits stem from a shared effect of nature exposure, rather than a single dominant mechanistic pathway. Robustness analyses confirmed the stability and reliability of the comparative effect estimates. These findings provide an integrative synthesis of randomized evidence and support NBIs as accessible, scalable strategies to improve sleep health. They also underscore the critical need for larger, more rigorously designed RCTs to refine estimates of the comparative effectiveness of different NBI modalities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.