Aromatherapy is popular yet it has a problem: there is no indication for it. Yes, it can make you feel better but this is hardly a true medical indication. I know of many things that make me feel better, and I would not call them a THERAPY! But perhaps this new study from Iran offers a solution for the dilemna:
Sleep plays an essential role in infant development. This randomized clinical trial investigated the effect of aromatherapy with rose water on the deep sleep status of premature infants admitted to a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU).
The study was conducted on 64 infants hospitalized in NICUs. In the intervention group, two drops of rose water were poured on gas and placed next to the babies’ heads. The control group was treated in the same way except that distilled water was employed. The ALS scale was used to assess the sleep status.
Of the 66 infants in this study, 30 were female and 36 were male. The average gestational age of the infants was 32.5 ± 1.99 weeks. The results showed that the amount of deep sleep (type A and B) in the intervention group was significantly higher than the control group during and after the intervention (p=0.001).
The authors concluded that, considering the positive impact of rose water in improve of sleep quality in premature babies; it can be used to improve sleeping condition of infants in hospitals, along with main treatment.
The study has many flaws and it is badly written. Yet, I find it interesting. If its results can be confirmed with a more rigorous trial, aromatherapy might finally find a true medical purpose.
I have always believed aromatherapy might have powerful effects, ever since a friend had terrible asthma attack when visiting a house using few drops of lavender oil to smell good
It’s not exactly a secret that SOME natural extracts (sometimes with a pleasant smell) can have a physiological effect. Not necessarily a positive effect, mind you. And, in fact, the positive/therapeutic effects are, with few exceptions, mild and very limited, while the negative ones can be anything up to and including death (and that includes some of the compounds with positive effects in lower amounts).
However, all that’s got precious little to do with “aromatherapy” or any of its tenets.
There is a point to consider there. If the aromatherapy product involves actual plant oils rather than a synthetic chemical perfume, is there any risk in putting an infant in a situation where they could ingest plant proteins?
Synthetic chemical scents while presumably not triggering an IgE response since they don’t contain proteins, might trigger some other specific chemical sensitivity (and so, I suppose, might plant-based perfume products in which the proteins are sufficiently denatured as to not trigger IgE responses, but some other plant chemistry might trigger a reaction).
Or is a premature baby’s immune system insufficiently developed to respond in those ways? I don’t know, I don’t got me no book larnin’…..
Which brings to mind: “It’s life, Jim, but not as we know it.”
— “Star Trekkin'” by British novelty band The Firm.
Two questions come to mind, using other scents, and other ages.
So, ‘RG’ didn’t bother to read the study.
I looked at the study and read a good deal. Don’t assume that I viewed any absolute positive findings just because I suggested some alternative studies.
Utter tosh, as usual.
I think it would be correct to state that researchers may have found a purpose for rose-water 🤓
I’ve quoted Edzard’s text there, but it’s also like that in the paper.
It sounds like a difficult technique. Perhaps they meant “gauze”?
I noticed that. From the study [my bolding]:
An observation rather than a criticism: I found many errors in the paper, the most annoying of which being that the reference numbers in the text do not align with the numbers in the references.