[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.211.168.204. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Other Articles
June 26, 2000

A Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Effects of Remote, Intercessory Prayer on Outcomes in Patients Admitted to the Coronary Care Unit—Correction

Arch Intern Med. 2000;160(12):1878. doi:10.1001/archinte.160.12.1878

Errors in Results. In the Original Investigation titled "A Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Effects of Remote, Intercessory Prayer on Outcomes in Patients Admitted to the Coronary Care Unit," published in the October 25, 1999, issue of the ARCHIVES (1999;159:2273-2278), the authors, Harris et al, were prompted by questions raised in postpublication correspondence to reevaluate their calculations and feel that 2 points need to be clarified. In Table 3 of their article, a percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty procedure (PTCA) with a stent and/or a rotablator appeared to count as one event. However, when they calculated the unweighted score, they gave one point for PTCA and an additional point for stent and one for rotablator when these occurred in the same patient. Thus, a patient receiving all 3 procedures was given 3 points, not 1, as was implied in Table 3. Second, the need for a cardiovascular stress test (such as a thallium test or an echocardiogram) was included in the calculation of the Mid American Heart Institute–Cardiac Care Unit (MAHI-CCU) scores but was omitted from Tables 1 and 3 of their article. There were 44 of these events in the usual care group (8.4%) and 26 (5.6%) in the prayer group (P=.11). The following tabulation clarifies how Harris et al arrived at the scores reported in Table 4:

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
×