View
1.219
Download
2
Category
Tags:
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Erik Rauterkus, 9th grader, did his long term project on the power of prayer by doing a systematic review of the scientific literature and evaluation of the evidence.
Citation preview
Does intercessory prayer impact health outcomes?
A Systematic Review of the Literature
Erik RauterkusObama Academy of International Studies
LTPApril 13, 2010
Path of Religion
Creation of Universe
Big Bang
Life forms on earth
Evolution of Life
Early Humans develop
Hunter and Gathers SURPLUS
Civilizations
Time to Think
Religion Develops
• Prayer becomes an aspect of religion• The first written record of prayer dates back to
circa 2700 BCE
• Homer • Shakespeare • Much more
To pray for their health (intercessory prayer)
Best way to help a sick friend at the
time
People don’t like that their friends
are sick
People are sick
National Research on Prayer
• The National Institutes of Health has concluded that Prayer is the most commonly used form of alternative medicine.
• NIH found– 55% of Americans have used prayer for health– 31% of Americans have asked someone to pray for
their health– 23% of Americans partake in some sort of prayer
group
Systematic Review
• A specific review of literature trying to answer a specific question.
• It only reviews high levels of scientific research and analyzes all research papers on the topic.
• Main purpose of a systematic review is to validate previous research on the topic, and to conclude based on the combination of information that each experiment presents.
Methods
• PubMed– National Institute of Health – Strict procedure for works of research to be
included in PubMed
Acceptable studies for systematic review
• Level 1 (systematic reviews/meta analysis)
• Level 2 (randomized controlled trials)
• One level 3 study was included, it had no control group, however, was acceptable.
Levels of Evidence
• Table 1. Levels of evidence and grade recommendations (Sackett et al, 2000).
1. Systematic Review and meta analysis of randomized controlled trials
2. Randomized controlled trials3. Non-randomized controlled trials4. Descriptive studies (cross-sectional surveys, cohort
studies, case-control designs)5. Case studies6. Expert Opinion
Grades of Recommendation
A. Consistent level 1 or 2 studiesB. Consistent level 3 or 4 studiesC. Level 5 studies or extrapolations from level 3
or 4 studiesD. Level 6 evidence or troubling inconsistencies
or inconclusive studies at any level
Investigation Process
Potentially relevant studies identified using key words in PubMed Search N=25
Studies excluded n=14 Reasons for exclusion:
Review articles, not English, opinion pieces, reducing
stress with prayer pieces.
Potentially relevant studies retrieved for more detailed
review n=11
Studies excluded n=1 Reason for exclusion: used
direct prayer
Studies included in review n=10 1 meta analysis, 1
non-primate study, 8 human studies
Studies that were Reviewed
• Byrd• Sicher• Harris• Aviles• Lebovici• Palmer• Benson• Astin • Lesniak
Studies that found that IP is beneficial
Grade Received • Byrd C• Sicher C• Harris B• Leibovici B• Lesniak A
Study Subjects/Groups What they did Level of Evidence
Comments/Issues
Byrd (1988) 2 groups 1 group with IP, 1 group no IP
2,C Well designedTrend, but no sign. difference
Sicher et al(1998)
2 groups 1 group with IP,1 group no IP
2,C Well designedRandomized, double blind, sign difference in AIDs patients
Harris et al(2000)
2 groups 1 group with IP1 group no IP
2,B Well designed, controlledPrayer over short time, sign. difference
Leibovici(2001)
2 groups 1 group with IP1 group no IP
2,B Well controlledLarge # of subjectsSmall difference
Lesniak (2006) 2 groups of bush babies (non-human primates)
1 group had drug and IP1 group had drug only
2,A Controlled for other prayers, only the prayers of the study group, blinded
Study Subjects/Groups What they did Level of Evidence
Comments/Issues
Aviles et al(2001)
2 groups 1 group with IP1 group no IP
2,A Well controlledNo difference
Palmer et al(2004)
2 groups 1 group with IP1 group no IP
2,C Lacking details. If patients thinks they can recover and receive prayer – better outcome
Benson et al(2006)
3 groups 1 group told they might have IP but did not; 1 group told they might have IP and did; 1 group told they would definitely have IP
2,B Group that knew they would have IP did worse. Small number of outcome variables.
Astin et al(2006)
3 groups 1 group with IP from trained individuals; 1 group with IP from untrained; 1 group with no IP
2,B Strong study.No difference
Types of Problems in Research
• Who else is praying?• Number of outcomes (Type 1 error)• Related outcomes • Randomization can by chance be unbalanced • Averaged data ignores individual
Study RandomizedControlled
ControlGroup
# of subjects
# of outcomes
Double-blinded
Result
Byrd (1988)
+ + 200 IP200 no IP
26 + +
Sicher et al (1998)
- + 20 IP20 no IP
11 + +
Harris et al (2000)
+ + 495 IP495 no IP
10 + +
Aviles et al (2001)
+ + 400 IP400 no IP
6 + -
Leibovici (2001)
+ + 1700 IP1700 no IP
3 + +
Palmer et al (2004)
+ + 45 IP42 no IP
2 + ~
Benson et al (2006)
+ - 604 IP; 597 no IP, 601 IP
2 minor outcomes
+ ~
Astin et al (2006)
+ + 52 IP (prof)52 IP52 no IP
Not detailed
+ ~
Lesniak (2006)
+ + 11 with IP11 no IP
8 + +
Recommended