MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4377861478 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0286260

Laughter as medicine: A systematic review and meta-analysis of interventional studies evaluating the impact of spontaneous laughter on cortisol levels

2023· review· en· W4377861478 on OpenAlexaff
Caroline K. Kramer, Cristiane Bauermann Leitão

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHumor Studies and Applications
Canadian institutionsLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
KeywordsLaughterMeta-analysisPsycINFORandomized controlled trialMedicinePlaceboPsychological interventionMEDLINEClinical psychologyPsychologyInternal medicineAlternative medicinePsychiatryPathologyNeuroscienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Laughter as an expression of humor has been recognized as good medicine for centuries. The health benefits of humor-induced well-being remain unclear and thus we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of interventional studies to evaluate the impact of spontaneous laughter on stress response as measured by cortisol levels. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Clinicaltrials.gov. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Interventional studies, which could be either randomized placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-experimental studies, conducted in adults that compared any spontaneous laughter intervention to a controlled setting and reported changes in cortisol levels were selected. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We examined the impact of laughter on percentage change in cortisol levels by calculating pooled estimates of the absolute differences between arithmetic means before and after interventions as compared to control using random-effects model. RESULTS: Eight studies (315 participants; mean age 38.6) met our inclusion criteria; four were RCTs and four were quasi-experiment studies. Five studies evaluated the impact of watching a humor/comedy video, two studies evaluating laughter sessions administered by a trained laughter therapist, and one study evaluating a self-administered laughter program. Pooling these data showed a significant reduction in cortisol levels by 31.9% (95%CI -47.7% to -16.3%) induced by laughter intervention compared to control group with no evidence of publication bias (P = 0.66). Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that even a single laughter session induced a significant reduction of 36.7% in cortisol (95%CI -52.5% to -20.8%). In addition, analyses including the four RCTs reinforced these results by demonstrating a significant reduction in cortisol levels promoted by laughter as compared to the placebo arm [-37.2% (95%CI -56.3% to -18.1%)]. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence demonstrates that spontaneous laughter is associated with greater reduction in cortisol levels as compared with usual activities, suggesting laughter as a potential adjunctive medical therapy to improve well-being. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registration number: CRD42021267972.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.065
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.131

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.065
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.036
Bibliometrics0.0090.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.683
GPT teacher head0.573
Teacher spread0.111 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicHumor Studies and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207