> Tud valaki bovebbet errol a kiserletrol? Erdekelne, hogy:
> - volt-e ilyen kiserlet, ha igen, mikor (melyik evben)?
> - hol es mikor tettek kozze, milyen szaklapban az eredme-
> nyeit?
> - letezik-e barmilyen egyeb forras, ami hirt adott errol
> a kiserletrol?
A kiserletet 1982-83-ban vegeztek, es 1988-ban publikaltak:
Byrd RC: Positive therapeutic effects of intercessory prayer in a
coronary care unit population.
South Med J 1988 Jul;81(7):826-9
Termeszetesen a cikk vitakat valtott ki, de sokaig nem szuletett ujabb
vizsgalat. Vegul 1999-ben jelent meg egy masik cikk, amelynek a szerzoi
tobb pacienssel, nagyobb korultekintessel ismeteltek meg a kiserletet:
Harris WS, Gowda M, Kolb JW, Strychacz CP, Vacek JL, Jones PG, Forker A,
O'Keefe JH, McCallister BD: A randomized, controlled trial of the effects
of remote, intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients admitted to the
coronary care unit.
Arch Intern Med 1999 Oct 25;159(19):2273-8
A masodik cikkben is azt talaltak, hogy azoknal a betegeknel, akikert
imadkoztak, valamivel kevesebb komplikacio lepett fel, de a ket csoport
kozotti kulonbseg csak gyengen szignifikans (P=0.04). Erdekes modon
viszont nem kaptak elterest azokban a parameterekben, amelyekben az elso
cikkben a legnagyobb eltereseket tapasztaltak. Tehat a ket cikk elegge
elter egymastol.
Erdemes elolvasni azt a vitat, amit a masodik cikk szerzoje, William
Harris, es a munka egyik biraloja, Irwin Tessmann folytatott a Missouri
Egyetemen, ez ev marciusaban. A vita jegyzokonyve elolvashato itt:
http://www.csicop.org/articles/20010810-prayer/
Ebbol kiderul, hogy a Byrd-fele vizsgalat soran tobb hibat is elkovettek,
a legnagyobb gond vele az, hogy valojaban nem volt kettos vak a kiserlet.
Volt ugyanis az egesz kiserletnek egy koordinatora, egy asszisztens holgy,
aki az egesz vizsgalat alatt mindent tudott. Minden adat az o kezeben
futott ossze, tehat o tudta, hogy kikert imadkoznak es kikert nem, es o
gyujtotte ossze az orvosi adatokat is. A Harris-fele vizsgalatnal ezt a
hibat mar nem kovettek el. Egyebkent a korhazi tartozkodas idejeben egyik
vizsgalatnal sem mutatkozott kulonbseg a ket csoport kozott, tehat az ima
nem gyorsitotta fel a gyogyulast. Felmerul meg egy olyan aggaly is, hogy a
ket csoportot nem lehet egymastol elesen elvalasztani, hiszen nem lehet
megoldani, hogy a kontrollcsoportban levo betegekert ne imadkozzon senki.
Nekem az a velemenyem, hogy az elso cikk modszertanilag kifogasolhato, a
masodik cikk pedig csak gyengen szignifikans hatast mutatott ki. E ket
cikk tehat messze nem jelent elegendo bizonyitekot arra, hogy a hatas
tenyleg letezik.
A vegere idebiggyesztem a ket cikk kivonatat is:
Byrd-cikk:
The therapeutic effects of intercessory prayer (IP) to the Judeo-Christian
God, one of the oldest forms of therapy, has had little attention in the
medical literature. To evaluate the effects of IP in a coronary care unit
(CCU) population, a prospective randomized double-blind protocol was
followed. Over ten months, 393 patients admitted to the CCU were
randomized, after signing informed consent, to an intercessory prayer
group (192 patients) or to a control group (201 patients). While
hospitalized, the first group received IP by participating Christians
praying outside the hospital; the control group did not. At entry,
chi-square and stepwise logistic analysis revealed no statistical
difference between the groups. After entry, all patients had follow-up for
the remainder of the admission. The IP group subsequently had a
significantly lower severity score based on the hospital course after
entry (P less than .01). Multivariant analysis separated the groups on the
basis of the outcome variables (P less than .0001). The control patients
required ventilatory assistance, antibiotics, and diuretics more
frequently than patients in the IP group. These data suggest that
intercessory prayer to the Judeo-Christian God has a beneficial
therapeutic effect in patients admitted to a CCU.
Harris-cikk:
CONTEXT: Intercessory prayer (praying for others) has been a common
response to sickness for millennia, but it has received little scientific
attention. The positive findings of a previous controlled trial of
intercessory prayer have yet to be replicated. OBJECTIVE: To determine
whether remote, intercessory prayer for hospitalized, cardiac patients
will reduce overall adverse events and length of stay. DESIGN: Randomized,
controlled, double-blind, prospective, parallel-group trial. SETTING:
Private, university-associated hospital. PATIENTS: Nine hundred ninety
consecutive patients who were newly admitted to the coronary care unit
(CCU). INTERVENTION: At the time of admission, patients were randomized to
receive remote, intercessory prayer (prayer group) or not (usual care
group). The first names of patients in the prayer group were given to a
team of outside intercessors who prayed for them daily for 4 weeks.
Patients were unaware that they were being prayed for, and the
intercessors did not know and never met the patients. MAIN OUTCOME
MEASURES: The medical course from CCU admission to hospital discharge was
summarized in a CCU course score derived from blinded, retrospective chart
review. RESULTS: Compared with the usual care group (n = 524), the prayer
group (n = 466) had lower mean +/- SEM weighted (6.35 +/- 0.26 vs 7.13 +/-
0.27; P=.04) and unweighted (2.7 +/- 0.1 vs 3.0 +/- 0.1; P=.04) CCU course
scores. Lengths of CCU and hospital stays were not different. CONCLUSIONS:
Remote, intercessory prayer was associated with lower CCU course scores.
This result suggests that prayer may be an effective adjunct to standard
medical care.
Udv,
SziA
|
