After a previous post about aromatherapy, someone recently commented:
I love essential oils and use them daily. Essential oils became a part of my life! I do feel better with it! Why I need clinical trials so?
The answer is probably: you don’t need clinical trials for a little pampering that makes you feel good.
But, if someone claims that aromatherapy (or indeed any other treatment) is effective for this or that medical condition, we need proof in the form of a clinical trial. By proof, we usually mean a clinical trial.
One like this new study, perhaps?
The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of a lavender aromatherapy skin patch on anxiety and vital sign variability during the preoperative period in female patients scheduled for breast surgery. Participants received an aromatherapy patch in addition to standard preoperative care. Anxiety levels were assessed with a 10-cm visual analogue scale (VAS) at baseline and then every 15 minutes after patch placement. Vital sign measurements were recorded at the same interval. There was a statistically significant decrease (P = .03) in the anxiety VAS measurements from baseline to final scores.
The authors concluded that the findings from this study suggest the use of aromatherapy is beneficial in reducing anxiety experienced by females undergoing breast surgery. Further research is needed to address the experience of preoperative anxiety, aromatherapy use, and the challenges of managing preoperative anxiety.
No, not one like this study!
This study – its called it a ‘pilot study’ – tells us nothing of value.
Why?
- It was not a pilot study because it did not pilot anything; its aim was to evaluate aromatherapy.
- But it could not evaluate aromatherapy because it had no control group. This means the reduction in anxiety was almost certainly not a specific effect of the therapy, but a non-specific effect due to the extra attention, expectation, etc.
- This means that the conclusion (the use of aromatherapy is beneficial) is not justified.
- In turn, this means that the paper is not helpful in any way. All it can possibly do is to mislead the public.
In summary: another fine example of pseudo-research that, I believe, is worse than no research at all.
4 Responses to Oh dear, another baffling ‘study’ of aromatherapy
Leave a Reply to Alan Henness Cancel reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
What baffles me is that the authors of so many of these crappy studies conclude that “further research is needed”. Why don’t they do a proper study in the first place, thus avoiding the need?
The other question is, why don’t peer reviewers stamp on these overblown conclusions?
probably because the peer reviewers are incompetent believers in woo
For this is a judgmental review from one side, it would not be rightfully to quote holistic treatment as “pseudo-belief”. Essential oils for aromatherapy has been around in human society for centuries. Although its’ research is not as profoundly as pharmaceutical drugs treatment but slowly more scientific studies on essential oils are conducted around the world. Why not allow some time and platform for them to justify?
Why not just say what was wrong with prof Ernst’s assessment and why not present whatever you believe is the best evidence?