I've had a quick scan, some data is reliable, some far less so, as it's from pressure groups. Taking the least reliable first. When Australia acted to place bans on wood stoves in first one area, and now, I believe, other areas, this followed studies that showed a higher incidence of disease related to air pollution in those areas. This pressure group (so treat the data with due caution) have made some comparisons that are on the high side, such as suggesting that wood stoves emit around 1000 times more PM2.5s than car exhaust (personally I'd question that):
http://woodsmoke.3sc.net/health
The Launceston study ( http://menzies.utas.edu.au/news-and-events/media-releases/2013/reduction-in-air-pollution-from-wood-heaters-associated-with-reduced-risk-of-death ) is quite compelling, though, as it seems to show a pretty strong causal link between wood burning stoves and disease, high enough to be statistically relavant for sure. As a cautionary note, the local environment there tended to produce higher levels of low level air pollution than areas with a different topology or weather patterns.
This abstract from the British Medical Journal is clearly written by someone who is anti-wood smoke, but nevertheless there are some snippets of decent data in there (pity you have to be a BMJ member to read the whole paper: http://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h2757/rr-0 One quote from that has clearly been chosen to stand out:
There's an interesting paper from Norway, all the more interesting as Norway has a long history of burning wood and has, along with other Scandinavian countries, done a fair bit to improve the way stoves combust more efficiently, and in ways that produce less pollution (basically it comes from the the rocket stove principle, make the burn as hot as possible and never restrict the air supply to reduce heat output ):
http://www.miljodirektoratet.no/old/klif/nyheter/dokumenter/25042013(PM emission factors wood stoves_Rapport_Final_64-65).pdf