ArticlePloS one2025
The use and impact of virtual reality programs supported by aromatherapy for older adults: A scoping review protocol.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Both virtual reality and aromatherapy have shown promising impacts on the health and well-being of older adults. Aromatherapy has been reported to enhance immersive experiences during virtual reality programs. However, studies on the combined use and impact of virtual reality and aromatherapy for older adults have not been systematically reviewed. Therefore, this scoping review will identify existing types of virtual reality programs supported by various forms of aromatherapy and their outcome measures and results on the well-being of older adults. This review will be conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology or scoping reviews and will be reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. The search strategy will encompass both published and unpublished papers. The databases to be searched are CINAHL, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, ACM digital library, IEEE Xplore digital library, Compendex, ProQuest, and Google Scholar. Two independent reviewers will perform title and abstract screening, full-text screening, and data extraction. Data analysis and synthesis will be discussed by the whole research team, mapped in the literature table and accompanied by a narrative summary. Scoping review data will be collected from publicly available articles; research ethics approval is not required. The findings will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.