ArticlePloS one2025
Essential criteria for reporting of aromatherapy-focused research in humans: An international Delphi consensus study protocol.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundReporting quality of aromatherapy-focused research in humans is inconsistent and often incomplete yet there are no (North American or American) nationally or internationally agreed upon core criteria for aromatherapy-focused research. The Aromatic Research Quality Appraisal Task Force developed the Transparent Reporting for Essential oil and Aroma Therapeutic Studies (TREATS) checklist as initial steps toward developing a reporting guideline. The purpose of this Delphi study is to engage with an international community of aromatherapy researchers to reach consensus on which items should be included in reports of aromatherapy-focused studies in humans. The result of the consensus process will be to publish an aromatherapy research reporting guideline that can be used as an extension to existing research reporting guidelines for various studies such as randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and case reports.
methodsA modified Delphi consensus study will be used. The consensus study, approved by the West Virginia University Institutional Review Board, will consist of up to four rounds of an online survey. To improve understanding and buy-in, experts attending a large international aromatherapy-focused conference will take part in a four-hour in-person/virtual hybrid introductory meeting where they can learn the study process and ask questions. The 48-item survey is divided into categories covering study products, processes, aromatherapy intervention, safety, sustainability, and olfactory ability and aroma preference. Participants will be asked to rate each checklist item for relevance on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from "of little importance" to "extremely important". During the Delphi study, participants can provide comments and, in the first and second rounds, may suggest additional items or modifications to existing items. An item will be automatically included in the final guidelines if it is rated as "very important" or "extremely important" by at least ≥80% of the participants in Rounds 1-3, and automatically excluded if > 50% of participants rate the item as "not important" or "of little importance". Aggregated ratings will be statistically analyzed for response rates, level of agreement, medians, and interquartile ranges. DISCUSSION: This protocol supports conducting a Delphi consensus that will add to the current knowledge of items considered necessary for complete and consistent reporting of aromatherapy-focused research in humans. This is of international significance as world-wide use and research of aromatherapy and essential oils in humans has continued to increase, currently without consistent and clear reporting. The Delphi method is appropriate for developing consensus between diverse experts, researchers, and practitioners as it offers anonymity and minimizes bias. Findings will contribute to creating an extension to primary reporting guidelines.
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.