Effectiveness of aromatherapy for prevention or treatment of disease, medical or preclinical conditions, and injury: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Background

Aromatherapy — the therapeutic use of essential oils from plants (flowers, herbs or trees) to treat ill health and promote physical, emotional and spiritual well-being — is one of the most widely used natural therapies reported by consumers in Western countries. The Australian Government Department of Health (via the National Health and Medical Research Council) has commissioned a suite of independent evidence evaluations to inform the 2019-20 Review of the Australian Government Rebate on Private Health Insurance for Natural Therapies. This protocol is for one of the evaluations: a systematic review that aims to examine the effectiveness of aromatherapy in preventing and/or treating injury, disease, medical conditions or preclinical conditions.

Methods

Eligibility criteria: randomised trials comparing (1) aromatherapy (delivered by any mode) to no aromatherapy (inactive controls), (2) aromatherapy (delivered by massage) to massage alone or (3) aromatherapy to ‘gold standard’ treatments. Populations: any condition, pre-condition, injury or risk factor (excluding healthy participants without clearly identified risk factors). Outcomes: any for which aromatherapy is indicated.

Searches: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), with a supplementary search of PubMed (covering a 6-month lag period for processing records in CENTRAL and records not indexed in MEDLINE), AMED and Emcare. No date, language or geographic limitations will be applied.

Data and analysis: screening by two authors, independently (records indexed by Aromatherapy or Oils volatile or aromatherapy in title; all full text) or one author (remaining records) with second author until 80% agreement. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment (ROB 2.0) will be piloted by three authors, then completed by a single author and checked by a second. Comparisons will be based on broad outcome categories (e.g. pain, emotional functioning, sleep disruption) stratified by population subgroups (e.g. chronic pain conditions, cancer, dementia) as defined in the analytic framework for the review. Meta-analysis or other synthesis methods will be used to combine results across studies. GRADE methods will be used to assess certainty of evidence and summarise findings.

Discussion

Results of the systematic review will provide a comprehensive and up-to-date synthesis of evidence about the effectiveness of aromatherapy.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO CRD42021268244

Related collections

Most cited references 80

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

Matthew J L Page, Joanne E McKenzie, Patrick Bossuyt … (2024)

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.

0 comments Cited 12441 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support.

Paul A. Harris, Robert Taylor, Robert Thielke … (2009)

Research electronic data capture (REDCap) is a novel workflow methodology and software solution designed for rapid development and deployment of electronic data capture tools to support clinical and translational research. We present: (1) a brief description of the REDCap metadata-driven software toolset; (2) detail concerning the capture and use of study-related metadata from scientific research teams; (3) measures of impact for REDCap; (4) details concerning a consortium network of domestic and international institutions collaborating on the project; and (5) strengths and limitations of the REDCap system. REDCap is currently supporting 286 translational research projects in a growing collaborative network including 27 active partner institutions.

0 comments Cited 9713 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement

David Moher, Larissa Shamseer, Mike Clarke … (2017)

Systematic reviews should build on a protocol that describes the rationale, hypothesis, and planned methods of the review; few reviews report whether a protocol exists. Detailed, well-described protocols can facilitate the understanding and appraisal of the review methods, as well as the detection of modifications to methods and selective reporting in completed reviews. We describe the development of a reporting guideline, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015). PRISMA-P consists of a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for the systematic review. Funders and those commissioning reviews might consider mandating the use of the checklist to facilitate the submission of relevant protocol information in funding applications. Similarly, peer reviewers and editors can use the guidance to gauge the completeness and transparency of a systematic review protocol submitted for publication in a journal or other medium.