Effectiveness of aromatherapy versus standard care on physiological and psychological symptoms in pregnant women: a systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of aromatherapy versus standard care on common physiological and psychological symptoms in low-risk pregnant women. INTRODUCTION: Women report common symptoms that result from anatomical and physiological changes significant for fetal development and maternal-fetal protection during pregnancy. Aromatherapy is an integrative and complementary practice of ancient origin that works through the administration of essential oils. The practice is used to promote physical and psychological well-being. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This systematic review will include studies on healthy pregnant women before labor who received aromatherapy as antenatal care for common physiological and psychological symptoms. Randomized clinical trials, quasi-experimental studies, cohort, and case-control studies will be included. This review will exclude studies that focus on women in labor unless data relating to pregnant women can be separated. METHODS: The searches will be carried out on the following databases: MEDLINE, Scopus, CINAHL, Web of Science, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, LILACS, BDENF, CUIDEN, and MOSAICO in Portuguese, English, and Spanish, with no date limit. The searches for unpublished studies will be carried out on the following repositories: ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Brazilian Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations, British Library EThOS, and the Canadian Theses and Dissertation Portal. The JBI approach will be used for study selection, critical evaluation, data extraction, and synthesis. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42020218730.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".