Effect of Lavender Aromatherapy on Anxiety and Fatigue in Hemodialysis Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Several studies have evaluated the effects of lavender essential oil on the anxiety of hemodialysis (HD) patients, but most of them did not estimate the pooled effect size. The current systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the effects of lavender on anxiety and fatigue among HD patients. Methods: Eligible studies were selected based on the PRISMA steps and protocol. Literature was retrieved from PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus databases, Cochrane, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar Search Engines until Sep 2022. The risk of bias and analysis were evaluated using version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and STATA v.14 software, respectively. Effect sizes were pooled using random effect models. Results: Nine studies were included. Lavender oil significantly reduced the average anxiety of HD patients compared to the control group (SMD: -2.51, 95% CI: [-3.56, -1.45], Z=4.67, P<0.001, I2 :89.9%). Also, it significantly reduced the average fatigue compared to the control group (SMD: -1.56, 95% CI: [-2.49, -0.63], Z=3.29, P=0.001, I2:92.2%). Subgroup analysis indicated controversial results regarding session frequency and drop number of lavender oil. Conclusion: Using Lavender oil significantly reduced fatigue and anxiety in HD patients.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".