This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on ISI (3)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related articles  • Similar articles in this journal

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

We have found a discrepancy and possible error in the data regarding intercessory prayer presented by Harris et al.¹ Table 3 in the article lists the number of events for each component of the Mid America Heart Institute–Cardiac Care Unit (MAHI-CCU) score. Summing these numbers, being careful not to include the interventional coronary procedures twice (as both the total number and the number for the different procedures are listed in Table 3), gives the total number of events as 1436 for the usual care group and 1173 for the prayer group. Dividing by the number of patients in each group (524 control group patients and 466 prayer group patients) results in an unweighted MAHI-CCU score of 2.74 for the usual care group and 2.52 for the prayer group, instead of the scores of 3.00 and 2.70 reported in Table 4 in the article.

If our calculations are correct, the absolute . . . [Full Text of this Article]

RELATED ARTICLES

Prayer and Medical Science: A Commentary on the Prayer Study by Harris et al and a Response to Critics
Larry Dossey
Arch Intern Med. 2000;160(12):1735-1738.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

A Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Effects of Remote, Intercessory Prayer on Outcomes in Patients Admitted to the Coronary Care Unit
William S. Harris, Manohar Gowda, Jerry W. Kolb, Christopher P. Strychacz, James L. Vacek, Philip G. Jones, Alan Forker, James H. O'Keefe, and Ben D. McCallister
Arch Intern Med. 1999;159(19):2273-2278.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT