BACKGROUND: OBJECTIVES: SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 3); MEDLINE; EMBASE; CINAHL; CAM on PubMed; Meditext; LILACS; and ISI Web of Science as well as grey literature sources and the reference lists of retrieved articles. We conducted database searches up to August 2011. SELECTION CRITERIA: DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed risk of bias in the included studies and extracted data. As all outcomes analysed were dichotomous, we used a fixed-effect model and calculated relative risk (RR) with associated 95% confidence interval (95% CI). MAIN RESULTS: The nine included studies comprised six RCTs and three CCTs with a total of 402 participants. The mean age and range data for all participants were not reported for all studies. The method of randomization in four of the six included RCTs was explicitly stated and was adequate. Incomplete reporting of data affected the completeness of the analysis. Compared with placebo, isopropyl alcohol vapour inhalation was effective in reducing the proportion of participants requiring rescue anti-emetics (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.00, P = 0.05). However, compared with standard anti-emetic treatment, isopropyl alcohol was not effective in reducing the proportion of participants requiring rescue anti-emetics (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.13, P = 0.13) except when the data from a possibly confounded study were included (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.98, P = 0.04). Where studies reported data on patient satisfaction with aromatherapy, there were no statistically significant differences between the groups (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.62 to 2.03, P = 0.71). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
|