Is aromatherapy massage and inhalation aromatherapy effective in reducing anxiety and pain among female burn patients?
Date of publication of the randomized controlled trial: December 2016
Design
Randomized controlled trial (RCT).
Participants
90 female patients (mean age: 35.8 years) with <20% second-degree burns.
Intervention
30 minutes aromatherapy massage using a blend of lavender and almond oils, or 30 minutes aromatherapy inhalation, using a blend of rose and lavender aroma.
Comparator
Comparison 1: Aromatherapy massage versus no treatment;
Comparison 2: Inhalation aromatherapy versus no treatment.
Major Outcomes
Outcome 1: Anxiety measured by the Spielberger State Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Higher score indicates higher anxiety level;
Outcome 2: Pain measured by visual analog scale (VAS). Higher score indicates higher level of pain.
Settings
This trial was performed in an inpatient setting.
Comparison    Aromatherapy massage versus no treatment
Main Results
Compared to no treatment, aromatherapy massage is significantly more effective in reducing anxiety (p<0.01) and pain (p<0.001) among female burn patients.
Comparison 1: Aromatherapy massage versus no treatment among female burn patients
Outcomes No. of studies (Total number of participants) Mean score (SD)/ No. of participants Heterogeneity test ( I2) p value Overall quality of evidence*
Intervention Comparator
1 1 (60) 40.03 (11.13)/ 30 43.06 (9.91)/ 30 Not applicable as there is only 1 study. <0.01 High
2 1 (60) 2.80 (2.28)/ 30 5.26 (2.40)/ 30 Not applicable as there is only 1 study. <0.001 Very High
Keys: SD = standard deviation.
Comparison    Inhalation aromatherapy versus no treatment
Main Results
Compared to no treatment, inhalation aromatherapy is significantly more effective in reducing anxiety (p<0.01) and pain (p<0.001) among female burn patients.
Comparison 2: Inhalation aromatherapy versus no treatment among female burn patients
Outcomes No. of studies (Total number of participants) Mean score (SD)/ No. of participants Heterogeneity test (I2) p value Overall quality of evidence*
Intervention Comparator
1 1 (60) 38.3 (10.51)/ 30 43.06 (9.91)/ 30 Not applicable as there is only 1 study. <0.01 High
2 1 (60) 3.53 (2.72)/ 30 5.26 (2.40)/ 30 Not applicable as there is only 1 study. <0.001 Moderate
Keys: SD = standard deviation.
Comparison    Aromatherapy massage versus no treatment
Main Results
Compared to no treatment, aromatherapy massage is significantly more effective in reducing anxiety (p<0.01) and pain (p<0.001) among female burn patients.
Comparison 1: Aromatherapy massage versus no treatment among female burn patients
Outcomes 1 2
No. of studies (Total number of participants) 1 (60) 1 (60)
Mean score (SD)/ No. of participants Intervention 40.03 (11.13)/ 30 2.80 (2.28)/ 30
Comparator 43.06 (9.91)/ 30 5.26 (2.40)/ 30
p value <0.01 <0.001
Overall quality of evidence* High Very High
Keys: SD = standard deviation.
Comparison    Inhalation aromatherapy versus no treatment
Main Results
Compared to no treatment, inhalation aromatherapy is significantly more effective in reducing anxiety (p<0.01) and pain (p<0.001) among female burn patients.
Comparison 2: Inhalation aromatherapy versus no treatment among female burn patients
Outcomes 1 2
No. of studies (Total number of participants) 1 (60) 1 (60)
Mean score (SD)/ No. of participants Intervention 38.3 (10.51)/ 30 3.53 (2.72)/ 30
Comparator 43.06 (9.91)/ 30 5.26 (2.40)/ 30
p value <0.01 <0.001
Overall quality of evidence* High Moderate
Keys: SD = standard deviation.
Conclusion
Benefits
Compared to no treatment, aromatherapy massage and inhalation aromatherapy are both significantly more effective in reducing anxiety and pain among female burn patients. Comparison 1: For Outcome 1, the overall quality of evidence is high. Further research is unlikely to have an important impact on our confidence in this estimate of effect. For Outcome 2, the overall quality of evidence is very high. Further research is most unlikely to have an important impact on our confidence in this estimate of effect. Comparison 2: For Outcome 1, the overall quality of evidence is high. Further research is unlikely to have an important impact on our confidence in this estimate of effect. For Outcome 2, the overall quality of evidence is moderate. Further research is fairly likely to have an important impact on our confidence in this estimate of effect.
Harms
No adverse events were reported.
Link to Original Article
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27575673
The synopsis is based on the following article:
Seyyed-Rasooli A, Salehi F, Mohammadpoorasl A, Goljaryan S, Seyyedi Z, Thomson B. Comparing the effects of aromatherapy massage and inhalation aromatherapy on anxiety and pain in burn patients: A single-blind randomized clinical trial. Burns. 2016 Dec;42(8):1774-1780.


* Interpretation of quality assessment results:
• Very low: Further research is most likely to have an important impact on our confidence in this estimate of effect.
• Low: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in this estimate of effect.
• Moderate: Further research is fairly likely to have an important impact on our confidence in this estimate of effect.
• High: Further research is unlikely to have an important impact on our confidence in this estimate of effect.
• Very high: Further research is most unlikely to have an important impact on our confidence in this estimate of effect.

Details of assessment method can be found at Chung VC, Wu XY, Ziea ET, Ng BF, Wong SY, Wu JC. Assessing internal validity of clinical evidence on effectiveness of CHinese and integrative medicine: Proposed framework for a CHinese and Integrative Medicine Evidence RAting System (CHIMERAS). European Journal of Integrative Medicine. 2015 Aug 31;7(4):332-41.