 |
 |

Questions on the Design and Findings of a Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Effects of Remote, Intercessory Prayer on Outcomes in Patients Admitted to the Coronary Care Unit
 |
 |
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
 |
 |
Harris et al1 did not evaluate or comment on what appears to be the strongest statistical association in their study: 3.7% (18/484) of those in the prayer group were discharged within 24 hours compared with only 0.9% (5/529) of those in the usual care group (P<.005 by 2 test if observations are independent). Since these discharges occurred before the intervention began (mean±SE,1.6 ± 0.16 days after admission), we are concerned that the statistical methods used by Harris et al,1 which assume independence of the observations, may not be appropriate for their data. While their article states that "new patients were randomly assigned," it is not clear whether the same person who was readmitted for a new episode would have constituted a new patient; Figure 1 of their article does not indicate that readmissions of the same patient were excluded.1 Since patient assignment was based on an (odd or even) . . . [Full Text of this Article]
CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati Twitter
What's this?
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
|