Clinical Abstracts
With Comments by Adriane Fugh-Berman, MD
Aromatherapy and Abortion
August 2001; Volume 3; 63-64
Source: Wiebe E. A randomized trial of aromatherapy to reduce anxiety before abortion. Eff Clin Pract 2000;4:166-169.
Design/Setting/Subjects: Double-blind, randomized trial of 66 women awaiting surgical abortion at a freestanding abortion clinic in Vancouver, British Columbia.
Treatment: After routine counseling, subjects spent 10 minutes sniffing a container of placebo (a hair conditioner containing Brazil nut oil) or a mixture of essential oils recommended for relaxation (3 drops vetivert [Vetiveria zizanoides], six drops of bergamot [Citrus bergamia = Citrus aurantium subsp. Bergamia], and four drops of geranium [Pelargonium graveolens] in cold-pressed soy oil).
Outcome Measures: Anxiety level was assessed before and after treatment by asking participants to rate their level of anxiety on a verbal anxiety scale of 1-10.
Results: Anxiety scores were reduced by 1 point (from 5 to 4) in the aroma-therapy group and by 1.1 points (from 6.1-5) in the placebo group. There was no significant difference between groups.
Funding: Not stated (the Tzu Chi Institute for Complementary and Alternative Medicine is listed among acknowledgements, and Aroma Borealis is acknowledged for providing aromatherapy supplies).
Comments: There are very few controlled studies of aromatherapy; and even fewer involving inhalation of essential oils. Several aromatherapy trials have tested the adjunctive effect of aromatherapy oils to massage (comparing massages done with unscented oils to massages done with essential oil-enhanced oils). Some "aromatherapy" trials have tested essential oils taken internally, a mode of administration I argue is herbal medicine, not aroma-therapy.
This was a simple trial, with a nicely chosen control, that showed no effect of aromatherapy on anxiety before a minor surgical procedure. It would have been preferable, however, to use a standard, validated instrument for measuring anxiety. Also, the statistical analysis is inappropriate; the authors should have determined what degree of change on the scale represented improvement and then counted what proportion of each group could be characterized as improved.
August 2001; Volume 3; 63-64
You have reached your article limit for the month. Subscribe now to access this article plus other member-only content.
- Award-winning Medical Content
- Latest Advances & Development in Medicine
- Unbiased Content