Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Scopus||Web of Science®||Altmetric|
|Title:||Aromatherapy for pain management in labour|
|Citation:||Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2011; 2011(7):1-22|
|Publisher:||Update Software Ltd|
|Caroline A. Smith, Carmel T. Collins and Caroline A. Crowther|
|Abstract:||Background: Many women would like to avoid pharmacological or invasive methods of pain management in labour and this may contribute towards the popularity of complementary methods of pain management. This review examined currently available evidence supporting the use of aromatherapy for pain management in labour. Objectives: To examine the effects of aromatherapy for pain management in labour on maternal and perinatal morbidity. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 October 2010), The Cochrane Complementary Medicine Field's Trials Register (October 2010), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1966 to 31 October 2010), CINAHL (1980 to 31 October 2010), the Australian and New Zealand Trials Registry (31 October 2010), Chinese Clinical Trial Register (31 October 2010), Current Controlled Trials (31 October 2010), ClinicalTrials.gov (31 October 2010), ISRCTN Register (31 October 2010), National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) (31 October 2010) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (31 October 2010). Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials comparing aromatherapy with placebo, no treatment or other non-pharmacological forms of pain management in labour. Data collection and analysis: Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. Main results: We included two trials (535 women) in the review. The trials found no difference between groups for the primary outcomes of pain intensity, assisted vaginal birth (risk ratio (RR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48 to 2.28, one trial, 513 women; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.06 to 11.70, one trial, 22 women), and caesarean section (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.94, one trial, 513 women; RR 2.54, 95% CI 0.11 to 56.25, one trial, 22 women); there were more babies admitted to neonatal intensive care in the control group of one trial (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.42, one trial, 513 women) but this difference did not reach statistical significance. The trials found no differences between groups for the secondary outcomes of use of pharmacological pain relief (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.32, one trial, 513 women; RR 2.50, 95% CI 0.31 to 20.45, one trial, 22 women), spontaneous vaginal delivery (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.06, one trial, 513 women; RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.28, one trial, 22 women) or length of labour and augmentation (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.45, one trial, 513 women). The risk of bias was low in the trials. Authors' conclusions: There is a lack of studies evaluating the role of aromatherapy for pain management in labour. Further research is needed before recommendations can be made for clinical practice.|
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
|Rights:||Copyright © 2011 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.|
|Appears in Collections:||Aurora harvest|
Obstetrics and Gynaecology publications
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.