| Ref ID | 14 |
| First Author | K. J. Jorgensen |
| Journal | JOURNAL OF NEGATIVE RESULTS IN BIOMEDICINE |
| Year Of Publishing | 2009 |
| URL | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2728094/pdf/1477-5751-8-7.pdf |
| Keywords |
• Cochrane • Inference • Complementary & Alternative |
| Problem(s) |
• Interpreted without considering certainty or overall quality of the evidence base • Weaknesses identified in some Cochrane reviews • Review question not justified / important • Non-financial conflicts of interest of review authors • Perpetuates citation of poor quality primary study data |
| Article Type | Editorial |
| Article Subtype | Discussion piece |
| First Author Country | Denmark |
| Aim | To highlight limitations and validity of a Cochrane review published in 2007 including ten randomised trials (7646 patients) of intercessory prayer which concluded that the evidence justifies further trials. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | The authors highlight that the review question involves three assumptions that are all unlikely to be true. First, the existence of a god; second, that prayer can somehow travel in space and reach this god, or that it works through another mechanism unknown to science; third, that this god is responsive to prayer and can influence at a distance what would otherwise have happened. The authors of the Cochrane review reportedly mix theological arguments with scientific reasoning, are logically inconsistent and do not relate crucial information about the included trials to the reader. The authors did not detect that the largest "trial" was meant to amuse rather than being scientific evidence, and that a suspicion of fraud has been raised against another large trial included in the review. Features which question the validity of several of the included trials are discussed, which were not highlighted by the Cochrane review authors. The authors of the Cochrane review declare Christian and Muslim backgrounds as potential conflicts of interest. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 1 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 1 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |