Summary of findings 3. AWARENESS OF INTERCESSORY PRAYER vs usual care: Clinical state: 2. Significant complications (readmission to CCU)
Summary of findings 3. AWARENESS OF INTERCESSORY PRAYER showed no clear difference in clinical state: 2. Significant complications (readmission to CCU) compared with STANDARD CARE (moderate certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Summary of findings 3. AWARENESS OF INTERCESSORY PRAYER vs STANDARD CARE Clinical state: 2. Significant complications (readmission to CCU) · patients with scheduled to receive non‐emergency CABG Summary of findings 3. AWARENESS OF INTERCESSORY PRAYER showed no clear difference in clinical state: 2. Significant complications (readmission to CCU) compared with STANDARD CARE (moderate certainty). Intercessory prayer for the alleviation of ill health (2009) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.91 [0.64, 1.29] | 1 study · 1198 participants | Moderate |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intercessory prayer for the alleviation of ill health 2009 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.