![]() Moderate-to-large effect sizes were observed for Citrus limon (L.) Burm. was the best ranked intervention with a WMD of−9.62 (95% CrI−15.62, −3.7). Regarding the results of TAIS, citrus aurantium L. Moderate effect sizes were observed for Rosa rugosa Thunb. Followed by Citrus (citrus aurantium L.), which had a WMD of−9.62 (95% CrI−13.32, −5.93). (jasmine) was the most effective with a weighted mean difference (WMD) of−13.61 (95% CrI−24.79, −2.48). Network meta-analyses demonstrated that regarding the outcome of SAIS, Jasminum sambac (L.)Ait. Additionally, EOs could decrease systolic blood pressure (SBP) and heart rate (HR). Pairwise meta-analyses showed that EOs were effective in reducing State Anxiety Inventory scores (SAIS) and Trait Anxiety Inventory scores (TAIS). Results: Forty-four RCTs (fifty study arms) involving 10 kinds of EOs and 3419 anxiety patients (1815 patients in EOs group and 1604 patients in control group) were included. Pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis were performed by Stata 15.1 or R 4.1.2 software. ![]() The trial data were extracted and the risk of bias was assessed by two reviewers independently. Only full texts of RCTs that investigated the effects of EOs on anxiety were included. Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were searched from inception to November 2022. The purpose of the study was to directly or indirectly compare the efficacy of different types of EOs on anxiety by pooling the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). 3National Cardiovascular Clinical Medical Research Center of TCM, Beijing, Chinaīackground and purpose: The findings of clinical studies exploring essential oils (EOs) for anxiety remain disputed, and no studies have yet clarified the differences in the efficacy of EOs.2Graduate School of Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.1Xiyuan Hospital, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.Ling Tan 1 †, Fei-fei Liao 1,2 †, Lin-zi Long 1, Xiao-chang Ma 1,3, Yu-xuan Peng 1,2, Jie-ming Lu 1,2, Hua Qu 1,3 * and Chang-geng Fu 1,3 *
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |