Intercessory prayer for the alleviation of ill health

Leanne Roberts; Irshad Ahmed; Andrew Davison

doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000368.pub3

Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Contenido relacionado

Ir a:

Revisiones y protocolos relacionados
Guías
Temas

Revisiones y protocolos relacionados

Topics

Temas

Figure 1

Review authors' judgements for each quality item

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 INTERCESSORY PRAYER (CONTEMPORANEOUS ) versus STANDARD CARE, Outcome 1 Death by end of trial.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 INTERCESSORY PRAYER (CONTEMPORANEOUS ) versus STANDARD CARE, Outcome 2 Clinical state: 1. Improved/not improved: intermediate or bad outcome.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 INTERCESSORY PRAYER (CONTEMPORANEOUS ) versus STANDARD CARE, Outcome 3 Clinical state: 2. Significant complications (readmission to CCU).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 INTERCESSORY PRAYER (CONTEMPORANEOUS ) versus STANDARD CARE, Outcome 4 Clinical state: 3. Presence of any post operative complications by 30 days.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 INTERCESSORY PRAYER (CONTEMPORANEOUS ) versus STANDARD CARE, Outcome 5 Clinical state: 4. Significant complications (various).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva


Study	Prayer	Standard care
Byrd 1988	N = 192 Mean = 3.7 S.D. = 2.2	N = 201 Mean = 4.0 S.D. = 2.4

Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 INTERCESSORY PRAYER (CONTEMPORANEOUS ) versus STANDARD CARE, Outcome 6 Clinical state: 5. Mean number of discharge medications (data likely to be skewed).

Ir a la figura de la revisión

Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 INTERCESSORY PRAYER (CONTEMPORANEOUS ) versus STANDARD CARE, Outcome 7 Clinical state: 6. No change or deterioration in attitude.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1 INTERCESSORY PRAYER (CONTEMPORANEOUS ) versus STANDARD CARE, Outcome 8 Service use: 1. Rehospitalisation (any reason).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.9

Comparison 1 INTERCESSORY PRAYER (CONTEMPORANEOUS ) versus STANDARD CARE, Outcome 9 Service use: 2. Number of 'visits to emergency department after discharge (specific to cardiac problem).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva


Study	Prayer	Standard care
Byrd 1988	N = 192 Mean = 7.6 S.D. = 8.9.	N = 201 Mean = 7.6 SD = 8.7.

Analysis 1.10

Comparison 1 INTERCESSORY PRAYER (CONTEMPORANEOUS ) versus STANDARD CARE, Outcome 10 Service use: 3. Mean number of days in hospital (data likely to be skewed).

Ir a la figura de la revisión


Study	Prayer	Standard care
Byrd 1988	N =192 Mean = 2 S.D. = 2.5	N = 201 Mean = 2.4 S.D. = 4.1

Analysis 1.11

Comparison 1 INTERCESSORY PRAYER (CONTEMPORANEOUS ) versus STANDARD CARE, Outcome 11 Service use: 4. Mean number of days in CCU (data likely to be skewed).

Ir a la figura de la revisión

Analysis 1.12

Comparison 1 INTERCESSORY PRAYER (CONTEMPORANEOUS ) versus STANDARD CARE, Outcome 12 Leaving the study early.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 INTERCESSORY PRAYER (RETROSPECTIVE) versus STANDARD CARE, Outcome 1 Death by end of trial.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 INTERCESSORY PRAYER (RETROSPECTIVE) versus STANDARD CARE, Outcome 2 Leaving the study early.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 AWARENESS OF INTERCESSORY PRAYER versus STANDARD CARE, Outcome 1 Death by end of trial.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3 AWARENESS OF INTERCESSORY PRAYER versus STANDARD CARE, Outcome 2 Clinical state: 1. Improved/not improved: intermediate or bad outcome.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.3

Comparison 3 AWARENESS OF INTERCESSORY PRAYER versus STANDARD CARE, Outcome 3 Clinical state: 2. Significant complications (readmission to CCU).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.4

Comparison 3 AWARENESS OF INTERCESSORY PRAYER versus STANDARD CARE, Outcome 4 Clinical state: 3. Presence of any post operative complications by 30 days.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.5

Comparison 3 AWARENESS OF INTERCESSORY PRAYER versus STANDARD CARE, Outcome 5 Leaving the study early.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4 AWARENESS OF INTERCESSORY PRAYER versus INTERCESSORY PRAYER, Outcome 1 Death by end of trial.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 4.2

Comparison 4 AWARENESS OF INTERCESSORY PRAYER versus INTERCESSORY PRAYER, Outcome 2 Clinical state: 1. Improved/not improved: intermediate or bad outcome.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 4.3

Comparison 4 AWARENESS OF INTERCESSORY PRAYER versus INTERCESSORY PRAYER, Outcome 3 Clinical state: 2. Significant complications (readmission to CCU).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 4.4

Comparison 4 AWARENESS OF INTERCESSORY PRAYER versus INTERCESSORY PRAYER, Outcome 4 Clinical state: 3. Presence of any post operative complications by 30 days.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 4.5

Comparison 4 AWARENESS OF INTERCESSORY PRAYER versus INTERCESSORY PRAYER, Outcome 5 Leaving the study early.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Table 1. Suggested design for future trial

Methods	Allocation: centralised sequence generation with table of random numbers or computer generated code, stratified by severity of illness, sequence concealed till interventions assigned. Blinding: those recruiting and assigning participants, those administering intervention, those assessing outcomes, all blind to allocated group. Duration: minimum of 26 weeks.
Participants	Diagnosis: Any person with a physical or mental health problem. N=300.* Age: adults. Sex: men and women. Setting: anywhere.
Interventions	1. Intercessory prayer: standard care (see below) plus personal, focused, committed and organised intercessory prayer on behalf of another. N=150. 2. Standard care: the relevant medical and non‐medical care normally given to people diagnosed with their particular illness. N=150.
Outcomes	Key problem prayed for resolved. Quality of life: functioning. Service outcomes: healthy days, days in hospital. Satisfaction with care: patients / carers. Adverse effects: including mortality. Economic data.
Notes	* Size of study to detect a 10% difference in improvement with 80% certainty. Primary outcome. * If scales are used to measure outcome then there should be binary cut off points, defined before study starts, of clinically important improvement.

Table 1. Suggested design for future trial

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Summary of findings for the main comparison. Summary of findings 1. INTERCESSORY PRAYER (CONTEMPORANEOUS ) versus STANDARD CARE

INTERCESSORY PRAYER (CONTEMPORANEOUS ) versus STANDARD CARE for various illnesses
Patient or population: patients with various illnesses Settings: in hospital Intervention: INTERCESSORY PRAYER (CONTEMPORANEOUS ) versus STANDARD CARE
Outcomes	*Illustrative comparative risks (95% CI)**		Relative effect (95% CI)	No of Participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Assumed risk	Corresponding risk
	Control	INTERCESSORY PRAYER (CONTEMPORANEOUS ) versus STANDARD CARE
Death by end of trial	Medium risk population		RR 0.72 (0.38 to 1.38)	3389 (5)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ low^1,2
	96 per 1000	69 per 1000 (36 to 132)
Clinical state: 1. Improved/not improved: intermediate or bad outcome	Medium risk population		RR 0.98 (0.86 to 1.11)	2705 (5)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ low^1,2
	269 per 1000	264 per 1000 (231 to 299)
Clinical state: 2. Significant complications (readmission to CCU)	Medium risk population		RR 1 (0.77 to 1.3)	2644 (4)	⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate¹
	84 per 1000	84 per 1000 (65 to 109)
Leaving the study early	Medium risk population		RR 0.75 (0.43 to 1.31)	3446 (6)	⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate¹
	2 per 1000	2 per 1000 (1 to 3)
The basis for the assumed risk* (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio;
GRADE Working Group grades of evidance High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.
¹ Randomisation not well described ² Considerable heterogeneity

Summary of findings for the main comparison. Summary of findings 1. INTERCESSORY PRAYER (CONTEMPORANEOUS ) versus STANDARD CARE

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Summary of findings 2. Summary of findings 2. INTERCESSORY PRAYER (RETROSPECTIVE) versus STANDARD CARE

INTERCESSORY PRAYER (RETROSPECTIVE) versus STANDARD CARE for blood stream infections
Patient or population: patients with blood stream infections Settings: in hospital Intervention: INTERCESSORY PRAYER (RETROSPECTIVE) versus STANDARD CARE
Outcomes	*Illustrative comparative risks (95% CI)**		Relative effect (95% CI)	No of Participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Assumed risk	Corresponding risk
	Control	INTERCESSORY PRAYER (RETROSPECTIVE) versus STANDARD CARE
Death by end of trial	Medium risk population		RR 0.93 (0.84 to 1.03)	3393 (1)	⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate^1,2
	302 per 1000	281 per 1000 (254 to 311)
The basis for the assumed risk* (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio;
GRADE Working Group grades of evidance High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.
¹ Randomisation not well described ² Very rare type of study

Summary of findings 2. Summary of findings 2. INTERCESSORY PRAYER (RETROSPECTIVE) versus STANDARD CARE

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Summary of findings 3. Summary of findings 3. AWARENESS OF INTERCESSORY PRAYER versus STANDARD CARE

AWARENESS OF INTERCESSORY PRAYER versus STANDARD CARE for scheduled to receive non‐emergency CABG
Patient or population: patients with scheduled to receive non‐emergency CABG Settings: in hospital Intervention: AWARENESS OF INTERCESSORY PRAYER versus STANDARD CARE
Outcomes	*Illustrative comparative risks (95% CI)**		Relative effect (95% CI)	No of Participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Assumed risk	Corresponding risk
	Control	AWARENESS OF INTERCESSORY PRAYER versus STANDARD CARE
Death by end of trial	Medium risk population		RR 0.92 (0.44 to 1.95)	1198 (1)	⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate^1,2
	24 per 1000	22 per 1000 (11 to 47)
Clinical state: 1. Improved/not improved: intermediate or bad outcome	Medium risk population		RR 1.06 (0.79 to 1.4)	1198 (1)	⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate^1,2
	134 per 1000	142 per 1000 (106 to 188)
Clinical state: 2. Significant complications (readmission to CCU)	Medium risk population		RR 0.91 (0.64 to 1.29)	1198 (1)	⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate^1,2
	99 per 1000	90 per 1000 (63 to 128)
The basis for the assumed risk* (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio;
GRADE Working Group grades of evidance High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.
¹ Randomisation not well described ² Very rare type of study

Summary of findings 3. Summary of findings 3. AWARENESS OF INTERCESSORY PRAYER versus STANDARD CARE

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Summary of findings 4. Summary of findings 4. AWARENESS OF INTERCESSORY PRAYER versus INTERCESSORY PRAYER

AWARENESS OF INTERCESSORY PRAYER versus INTERCESSORY PRAYER for people who are ill
Patient or population: patients with scheduled to receive non‐emergency CABG Settings: in hospital Intervention: AWARENESS OF INTERCESSORY PRAYER versus INTERCESSORY PRAYER
Outcomes	*Illustrative comparative risks (95% CI)**		Relative effect (95% CI)	No of Participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Assumed risk	Corresponding risk
	Control	AWARENESS OF INTERCESSORY PRAYER versus INTERCESSORY PRAYER
Death by end of trial	Medium risk population		RR 0.82 (0.4 to 1.68)	1205 (1)	⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate^1,2
	27 per 1000	22 per 1000 (11 to 45)
Clinical state: 1. Improved/not improved: intermediate or bad outcome	Medium risk population		RR 0.78 (0.6 to 1.02)	1205 (1)	⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate^1,2
	181 per 1000	141 per 1000 (109 to 185)
Clinical state: 2. Significant complications (readmission to CCU)	Medium risk population		RR 0.95 (0.67 to 1.36)	1205 (1)	⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate^1,2
	94 per 1000	89 per 1000 (63 to 128)
The basis for the assumed risk* (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio;
GRADE Working Group grades of evidance High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.
¹ Randomisation not well described ² Very rare type of study

Summary of findings 4. Summary of findings 4. AWARENESS OF INTERCESSORY PRAYER versus INTERCESSORY PRAYER

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 1. INTERCESSORY PRAYER (CONTEMPORANEOUS ) versus STANDARD CARE

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Death by end of trial Show forest plot	5		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

1.1 high risk patients	1	445	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.03 [0.59, 1.81]
1.2 low risk patients	1	315	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.57 [0.23, 1.39]
1.3 all patients	5	3389	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.00 [0.74, 1.36]
2 Clinical state: 1. Improved/not improved: intermediate or bad outcome Show forest plot	5	2705	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.98 [0.86, 1.11]

3 Clinical state: 2. Significant complications (readmission to CCU) Show forest plot	4	2644	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.00 [0.77, 1.30]

4 Clinical state: 3. Presence of any post operative complications by 30 days Show forest plot	1	1201	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.02 [0.92, 1.14]

5 Clinical state: 4. Significant complications (various) Show forest plot	4		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

5.1 antianginal agents	2	1383	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.96 [0.71, 1.31]
5.2 antiarrhythmics	2	1383	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.89 [0.66, 1.20]
5.3 antibiotics	2	1383	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.97 [0.74, 1.28]
5.4 anemia/transfusion	1	990	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.85 [0.60, 1.20]
5.5 angina (unstable)	2	1383	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.01 [0.57, 1.79]
5.6 arterial pressure monitoring	2	1383	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.76 [0.51, 1.12]
5.7 atrial fibrillation	1	990	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.79 [0.38, 1.64]
5.8 cardiac arrest by end of trial	3	2182	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.46 [0.21, 0.99]
5.9 cardiopulmonary arrest	1	990	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.94 [0.29, 3.05]
5.10 catheterization	1	990	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.01 [0.85, 1.20]
5.11 central pressure monitoring	1	393	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.42 [0.17, 1.06]
5.12 congestive heart failure	2	1383	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.80 [0.49, 1.29]
5.13 coronary angiography	1	393	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.85 [0.46, 1.56]
5.14 diuretics	2	1383	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.90 [0.71, 1.13]
5.15 extension	2	1383	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.44 [0.13, 1.51]
5.16 gastrointestinal bleeding	2	1383	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.44 [0.17, 1.14]
5.17 hypotension	2	1383	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.86 [0.39, 1.87]
5.18 implanted cardiac defibrillator	1	990	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.87 [0.69, 5.12]
5.19 interventional coronary procedure	1	990	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.88 [0.72, 1.07]
5.20 intra‐aortic balloon pump	1	990	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.67 [0.33, 1.37]
5.21 intropic agents	2	1383	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.93 [0.70, 1.23]
5.22 intubation/ventilation	2	1383	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.74 [0.46, 1.20]
5.23 major surgery before discharge	2	1383	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.69 [0.51, 0.95]
5.24 pacemaker (permanent)	2	1383	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.76 [0.40, 1.45]
5.25 pacemaker (temporary )	2	1383	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.11 [0.57, 2.17]
5.26 pneumonia	2	1383	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.71 [0.38, 1.35]
5.27 post‐PCI ischemia	1	60	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.5 [0.17, 1.48]
5.28 sepsis	2	1383	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.86 [0.39, 1.87]
5.29 supraventricular tachyarrhythmia	2	1383	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.51 [0.24, 1.06]
5.30 Swan‐Ganz catheter	1	990	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.80 [0.66, 0.98]
5.31 third degree heart block	2	1383	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.79 [0.43, 7.43]
5.32 vasodilators	2	1383	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.83 [0.62, 1.11]
5.33 ventricular fibrillation/tachycardia	2	1383	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.89 [0.53, 1.51]
6 Clinical state: 5. Mean number of discharge medications (data likely to be skewed) Show forest plot			Other data	No numeric data

7 Clinical state: 6. No change or deterioration in attitude Show forest plot	1	38	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.94 [0.73, 1.21]

8 Service use: 1. Rehospitalisation (any reason) Show forest plot	2	1155	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.93 [0.71, 1.22]

9 Service use: 2. Number of 'visits to emergency department after discharge (specific to cardiac problem) Show forest plot	2	1789	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.13 [0.79, 1.62]

10 Service use: 3. Mean number of days in hospital (data likely to be skewed) Show forest plot			Other data	No numeric data

11 Service use: 4. Mean number of days in CCU (data likely to be skewed) Show forest plot			Other data	No numeric data

12 Leaving the study early Show forest plot	6	3446	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.75 [0.43, 1.31]

Comparison 1. INTERCESSORY PRAYER (CONTEMPORANEOUS ) versus STANDARD CARE

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 2. INTERCESSORY PRAYER (RETROSPECTIVE) versus STANDARD CARE

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Death by end of trial Show forest plot	1	3393	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.93 [0.84, 1.03]

2 Leaving the study early Show forest plot	1	3393	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Comparison 2. INTERCESSORY PRAYER (RETROSPECTIVE) versus STANDARD CARE

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 3. AWARENESS OF INTERCESSORY PRAYER versus STANDARD CARE

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Death by end of trial Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

1.1 all patients	1	1198	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.92 [0.44, 1.95]
2 Clinical state: 1. Improved/not improved: intermediate or bad outcome Show forest plot	1	1198	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.06 [0.79, 1.40]

3 Clinical state: 2. Significant complications (readmission to CCU) Show forest plot	1	1198	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.91 [0.64, 1.29]

4 Clinical state: 3. Presence of any post operative complications by 30 days Show forest plot	1	1198	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.15 [1.04, 1.28]

5 Leaving the study early Show forest plot	1	1198	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	2.98 [0.60, 14.71]

Comparison 3. AWARENESS OF INTERCESSORY PRAYER versus STANDARD CARE

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 4. AWARENESS OF INTERCESSORY PRAYER versus INTERCESSORY PRAYER

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Death by end of trial Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

1.1 all patients	1	1205	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.82 [0.40, 1.68]
2 Clinical state: 1. Improved/not improved: intermediate or bad outcome Show forest plot	1	1205	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.78 [0.60, 1.02]

3 Clinical state: 2. Significant complications (readmission to CCU) Show forest plot	1	1205	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.95 [0.67, 1.36]

4 Clinical state: 3. Presence of any post operative complications by 30 days Show forest plot	1	1205	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.12 [1.01, 1.24]

5 Leaving the study early Show forest plot	1	1205	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	3.01 [0.61, 14.88]

Comparison 4. AWARENESS OF INTERCESSORY PRAYER versus INTERCESSORY PRAYER

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

The Cochrane Library

Scolaris Language Selector Scolaris Language Selector

Idioma de la Revisión Cochrane

Idioma de la web

Scolaris Content Language Banner Portlet Scolaris Content Language Banner Portlet