| Title |
Aromatherapy: a systematic review.
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
British Journal of General Practice, June 2000
|
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
B Cooke, E Ernst |
| Abstract |
Aromatherapy is becoming increasingly popular; however there are few clear indications for its use. To systematically review the literature on aromatherapy in order to discover whether any clinical indication may be recommended for its use, computerised literature searches were performed to retrieve all randomised controlled trials of aromatherapy from the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, British Nursing Index, CISCOM, and AMED. The methodological quality of the trials was assessed using the Jadad score. All trials were evaluated independently by both authors and data were extracted in a pre-defined, standardised fashion. Twelve trials were located: six of them had no independent replication; six related to the relaxing effects of aromatherapy combined with massage. These studies suggest that aromatherapy massage has a mild, transient anxiolytic effect. Based on a critical assessment of the six studies relating to relaxation, the effects of aromatherapy are probably not strong enough for it to be considered for the treatment of anxiety. The hypothesis that it is effective for any other indication is not supported by the findings of rigorous clinical trials. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 2 | 17% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 8% |
| Curaçao | 1 | 8% |
| Spain | 1 | 8% |
| Myanmar | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 6 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 12 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 2,432 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 2426 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 66 | 3% |
| Student > Master | 53 | 2% |
| Researcher | 30 | 1% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 26 | 1% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 20 | <1% |
| Other | 77 | 3% |
| Unknown | 2160 | 89% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 66 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 36 | 1% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 31 | 1% |
| Psychology | 30 | 1% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 21 | <1% |
| Other | 82 | 3% |
| Unknown | 2166 | 89% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 214. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 February 2024.
All research outputs
#184,844
of 25,738,558 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#64
of 4,932 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67
of 40,248 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#1
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,738,558 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,932 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 40,248 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them