Home › Research › Treatments
Essential Oils as Treatment Strategy for Alzheimer's Disease: Current and Future Perspectives
Benny A, Thomas J.. Planta medica, 2018-10-25
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Alzheimer's disease is a multifarious neurodegenerative disease that causes cognitive impairment and gradual memory loss. Several hypotheses have been put forward to postulate its pathophysiology. Currently, few drugs are available for the management of Alzheimer's disease and the treatment provides only symptomatic relief. Our aim is to review the relevant in vitro, in vivo , and clinical studies focused toward the potential uses of essential oils in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease. Scientific databases such as PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus, and Google Scholar from April 1998 to June 2018 were explored to collect data. We have conducted wide search on various essential oils used in different models of Alzheimer's disease. Out of 55 essential oils identified for Alzheimer's intervention, 28 have been included in the present review. A short description of in vivo studies of 13 essential oils together with clinical trial data of Salvia officinalis, Salvia lavandulifolia, Melissa officinalis, Lavandula angustifolia , and Rosmarinus officinalis have been highlighted. In vitro studies of remaining essential oils that possess antioxidant and anticholinesterase potential are also mentioned. Our literary survey revealed encouraging results regarding the various essential oils being studied in preclinical and clinical studies of Alzheimer's disease with significant effects in modulating the pathology through anti-amyloid, antioxidants, anticholinesterase, and memory-enhancement activity.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Benny, A., & Thomas, J. (2019). Essential Oils as Treatment Strategy for Alzheimer's Disease: Current and Future Perspectives. Planta medica. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-0758-0188
Vancouver
Benny A, Thomas J. Essential Oils as Treatment Strategy for Alzheimer's Disease: Current and Future Perspectives. Planta medica. 2019. doi:10.1055/a-0758-0188. PMID: 30360002.
BibTeX
@article{benny2019-30360002,
author = {Benny, A. and Thomas, J.},
title = {{Essential Oils as Treatment Strategy for Alzheimer's Disease: Current and Future Perspectives}},
journal = {Planta medica},
year = {2019},
doi = {10.1055/a-0758-0188},
pmid = {30360002},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1055/a-0758-0188}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Our literary survey revealed encouraging results regarding the various essential oils being studied in preclinical and clinical studies of Alzheimer's disease with significant effects in modulating the pathology through anti-amyloid, antioxidants, anticholinesterase, and memory-enhancement activity.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 38/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 22 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 38 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Planta medica) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2019 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 30360002) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 22 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 22 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 38 out of 100. |
| Total | 38 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.