Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35975030›Full record

ReviewDrugs in context2022

Aromatic ointments for the common cold: what does the science say?

Andrew Smith, Oliver Matthews

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Drugs in context, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Intranasal essential oils in therapy: advances in clinical applications and delivery mechanisms.Journal of traditional Chinese medicine = Chung i tsa chih ying wen pan · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Andrew SmithSchool of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Oliver MatthewsProcter and Gamble UK, Weybridge, Surrey, UK.
Cardiff University · GBProcter & Gamble (United Kingdom) · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Upper respiratory tract infections occur with an annual incidence of 17.2 billion cases globally. The negative impact that symptoms have on sleep is thought to slow the recovery process. Plant-derived aromatics have been used since ancient times to treat respiratory illnesses. In this narrative review, we summarize the use of aromatics for the symptomatic relief of upper respiratory tract infections and how this affects sleep quality. Methods: Literature searches were conducted using a series of search terms and results were screened for relevance. Additional references were included according to the expert knowledge of the authors. Discussion: Multiple studies have observed that essential oil mixtures of aromatics enhance symptom relief for upper respiratory tract infections and their inhalation has been reported to have antitussive effects. Clinical trials assessing the efficacy of an ointment containing menthol, eucalyptus and camphor found patients to experience faster nasal cooling and decongestion times. Treatment with the same ointment also resulted in significant improvements in reported sleep quality. Aromatic treatment did not improve objective nasal airway measures in any of the studies. Conclusion: Whilst not affecting objective measures of nasal airway resistance, the use of aromatics leads to improvements in a number of subjective sensations associated with the common cold. Such benefits result in better sleep, which likely aids recovery. Therefore, aromatics remain a well tolerated and effective option for the symptomatic relief of upper respiratory tract infections.

Indexed as

aromaticcommon coldcoughmentholnasal congestion

Identifiers

PMID35975030
PMCPMC9354706
OpenAlexW4288032855

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.