Abstract Background: The wide use of herbal plants and essential oils for the prevention and treatment of diseases dates back to ancient times. However, the scientific basis for the beneficial effects of such plants and oils has not been precisely clarified. Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of aromatherapy body treatment on healthy subjects. Design: We compared the physiologic and psychologic effects of aromatherapy body treatment (E), massage treatment with carrier oil alone (C), and rest in healthy adults. Subjects: Seven (7) female and 6 male volunteers participated as subjects. Interventions: Each subject underwent 3 trials, in which the Advanced Trail Making Test (ATMT) was given as a stress-inducing task before and after 1 of 3 treatments. Outcome measures: The State Anxiety Inventory (SAI), the Visual Analog Scale, and the Face Scale were used to assess anxiety, feelings, and mood, respectively. Results: After the treatments, the SAI score and the feelings of fatigue were decreased, the positive and comfortable feelings were increased, and mood improved significantly in C and E. Furthermore, significant declines in the feelings of mental and total fatigue were maintained even after the second ATMT in E. On the other hand, the cortisol concentration in the saliva did not show significant changes in any of the trials. Secretory immunoglobulin A levels in the saliva increased significantly after all treatments. Conclusions: We conclude that massage treatments, irrespective of the presence of essential oils, are more advantageous than rest in terms of psychologic or subjective evaluations but not in terms of physiologic or objective evaluations. Furthermore, as compared to massage alone, the aromatherapy body treatment provides a stronger and continuous relief from fatigue, especially fatigue of mental origin.

Takeda H, Tsujita J, Kaya M, Takemura M, Oku Y. Department of Physiology, Hyogo College of Medicine, Hyogo, Japan. J Altern Complement Med. 2008 Jul 20.

OBJECTIVE: Outcome assessment normally used in research can support the therapeutic process by tracking patient symptoms and function and offering a common language to clinicians and researchers. This study's objectives were to (1) identify patient-based outcomes assessments used in published chiropractic studies, (2) describe a framework for identifying appropriate sets of measures, and (3) address the challenges associated with these measures relevant to chiropractic. METHODS: This literature review identified and evaluated the most commonly used to outcome measures in chiropractic research. Instruments were evaluated in terms of feasibility, practicality, economy, reliability, validity, and responsiveness to clinical change. A search of PubMed and Index to Chiropractic Literature (from inception to June 2006) was performed. RESULTS: A total of 1166 citations were identified. Of these, 629 were selected as relevant. The most common patient-based outcomes assessments instruments identified were the Oswestry Pain/Disability Index, Visual Analog Scale, and Short Form 36. CONCLUSIONS: The integration of outcome measures is consistent with current national initiatives to enhance health care quality through performance measurement and can also be used to further the field of chiropractic health care research. Outcome measures are both a research tool and a means by which providers can consistently measure health care quality. Based upon this review, there is a wide range of outcome measures available for use in chiropractic care. Those most commonly cited in the literature are the numeric rating scale, Visual Analog Scale, Oswestry Pain/Disability Index, Roland-Morris Low Back Pain and Disability Questionnaire, and Short Form 36.

Khorsan R, Coulter ID, Hawk C, Choate CG. Integrative Medicine and Military Medical Research, Samueli Institute, Corona del Mar, CA 92625, USA. rkhorsan@siib.org J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2008 Jun;31(5):355-75.