↓ Skip to main content

Aromatherapy: a systematic review.

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, June 2000
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#44 of 2,954)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
8 news outlets
blogs
6 blogs
twitter
13 tweeters
facebook
5 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user
q&a
1 Q&A thread
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
149 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
674 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Aromatherapy: a systematic review.
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, June 2000
Pubmed ID
Authors

B Cooke, E Ernst, Cooke, B, Ernst, E

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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 674 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 674 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 1 <1%
Unknown 673 100%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 1 <1%
Unknown 673 100%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 139. 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 03 October 2019.
All research outputs
#107,869
of 13,606,441 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#44
of 2,954 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#842
of 147,173 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#2
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,606,441 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 2,954 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. 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 147,173 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 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.