Summary of findings 2. Aromatherapy versus placebo or standard care for people receiving dialysis.
| Aromatherapy versus placebo or standard care for people receiving dialysis | ||||||
|
Patient or population: people receiving dialysis Settings: multinational Intervention: aromatherapy Comparison: placebo or standard care | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No. of participants (RCTs) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Placebo or standard care | Aromatherapy | |||||
|
Fatigue (PIPER, BFI, FSS, RFS) median follow‐up: 0.9 months |
The mean score for fatigue ranged across control groups from 6.21 to 45.1 (PFS, BFI, FSS, RFS) | The mean fatigue in the intervention group was 1.23 lower than the control group (95% CI 1.96 lower to 0.50 lower) | ‐‐ | 542 (7) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1,2,3 | Aromatherapy may improve fatigue compared to placebo or standard care in people undergoing HD |
| Weakness | Not reported | Not reported | ‐‐ | ‐‐ | ‐‐ | No studies reported this outcome |
| Energy | Not reported | Not reported | ‐‐ | ‐‐ | ‐‐ | No studies reported this outcome |
| Tiredness | Not reported | Not reported | ‐‐ | ‐‐ | ‐‐ | No studies reported this outcome |
| Exhaustion | Not reported | Not reported | ‐‐ | ‐‐ | ‐‐ | No studies reported this outcome |
| Asthenia | Not reported | Not reported | ‐‐ | ‐‐ | ‐‐ | No studies reported this outcome |
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk Ratio; PFS: Piper Fatigue Scale; BFI: Brief Fatigue Inventory; FSS: Fatigue Severity Scale; RFS: Rhoten fatigue scale; HD: haemodialysis. | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate. | ||||||
1 Evidence certainty was downgraded by one level due to study limitations
2 Evidence certainty was downgraded by one level due to imprecision (Optimal Information Size (OIS) not met and indirectness in outcome measure
3 Evidence certainty was downgraded by one level due to inconsistency