The paper overstates the therapeutic effects of essential oils without sufficient clinical evidence, relying heavily on general claims rather than rigorous randomized controlled trials. Additionally, the discussion lacks balance, as potential risks, contraindications, and adverse effects of essential oils are largely ignored. A more critical and evidence-based approach is needed to ensure scientific accuracy. I recommend that the authors carefully address these concerns to strengthen the study’s methodological rigor and improve the clarity and reliability of its conclusions.
In Table 1, the formatting is broken across pages, some entries are merged weirdly, and some rows are incomplete. Was this just a PDF extraction error, or does the actual published table also look this jumbled? It makes it really hard to trust the data compilation.
They mention Figure 1, 2, 3, and 4 in the text, but the PDF only shows placeholders like “image[[111, 374, 881, 490]]” instead of actual figures. Were the figures accidentally omitted, or is this a rendering issue? If they’re missing, it undermines the whole discussion about chemical structures and mechanisms.
The paper keeps saying “more research is needed” for safety and dosing, but then lists dozens of oils and uses like they’re already proven. Isn’t it a little contradictory to highlight lavender as “GRAS” but then later mention it’s a potential endocrine disruptor in kids? Feels like they’re glossing over real risks.
The CNS mechanisms in Figure 2 are described in text, but without the actual figure, it’s just a pile of pathways and receptor names. Even if the figure were there, the explanation jumps from lavender to ylang-ylang to rosemary without much critical comparison. Is this really a coherent “mechanism” section or just a literature dump?
They briefly mention ethical concerns about CAM for vulnerable populations in Section 6, but it’s not tied back to any of the oils or practices they review. Feels like an afterthought. Shouldn’t ethics be woven into the discussion of evidence gaps and clinical application?