首先～感谢st大让我长知识XDXDXD ※ 引述《strongshort (力量与智慧)》之铭言： : 不只三篇 其实做的还不少 : 引用一个meta-analysis report : Intercessory prayer for the alleviation of ill health. : Roberts L, Ahmed I, Hall S, Davison A. : Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Apr 15;(2):CD000368. Review. : 引用最後结论: : These findings are equivocal and, although some of the results of individual : studies suggest a positive effect of intercessory prayer,the : majority do not and the evidence does not support a recommendation either in : favour or against the use of intercessory prayer.We are : not convinced that further trials of this intervention should be undertaken : and would prefer to see any resources available for such a : trial used to investigate other questions in health care. : 至少目前看起来 祷告完全无效 我猜既然st大既然提到了meta-analysis～ 应该是科学背景的吧～ 这样应该会更好沟通XDXDXDXDXD 其实st大提到的是摘要部份的conclusion~ 其实那个conclusion是包含正文的Author's conclusions（在 P.15），还有 Implication for research（P.16） Author's conclusions有三点： 1.对於有接受医疗照护的人（For people receiving health care） The studies that have been done, reported and included in this review do not show an effect of intercessory prayer. however, because this review highlighted no clear effects does not mean that intercessory prayer does not work. 作者说没有清楚的效果（clear effect）不代表祷告没有用 The limitations in trial design and reporting are enough to hide a real beneficial effect and we found no data to contraindicate the use of prayer for seriously ill people. 就像我提过的一样～ 作者自己也提到了试验设计的限制（limitations in trial design） 2.对於医疗照护有备祷告打断的人（这我翻得不好，原文是For those intervening with prayer，还请高手帮忙） As we state near the beginning of this review, the trials included in this review cannot prove or refute the existence or actions of God. 作者说这些研究没法证明或否证神的存在～ 不过这不是我们的重点～ 我们的是祷告～这只是顺道提一下XD We have sought to use empirical methods to investigate the effectiveness of intercessory prayer for those who are sick and, mostly, this review suggests no real effect of prayer on health outcomes for the patients being prayed for. 这部份是说祷告对於这类的病患没有实际的效果。 3.For managers or policymakers In the light of the best available data, there are no grounds to change current practices in relation to the provision, or not, of prayer or the associated facilities. 对於管理或政策制定层面，目前没有足够的根据去改变现行的医疗照护措施。 这里指的是跟「是否提供祷告或是相关设备」有关的改变。 Implication for research 1.General Future studies, if there should be any, should follow CONSORT guidance on reporting and best practice on their methodological conduct.This reviewwould havemore data and greater confidence in its results should this guidance have been followed by the trials that we have included. 总的来说～如果要继续研究的话～在研究方法上应该要多注意，以便在未来纳入 meta-analysis中一起分析讨论。 2. Specific - should there be more trials? The evidence presented so far is interesting enough to support further study. However, if resources were available for such a trial, we would probably use them elsewhere. There are many other treatments that are in urgent need of evaluation and that are likely to be more suited to investigation in a randomised trial. Should someone else have resources for a randomised trial of intercessory prayer, we have suggested a design based on the best of the trials we have seen already (Table 1). 但是呢～ 作者认为～如果真有研究资源，不如先投入其他treatment的研究，因为 有很多treatment的研究都很缺资源啊！！！！XDXDXDXDXD 如果真的一定要做～作者也对研究设计提供了一些建议！ 总结有两点： 1.就这一系列的研究，我们真的可以说祷告完全无效吗？就连作者 都不敢这麽说呢！ 2.我不确定所谓「清楚的效果」（clear effect）是什麽意思，不过我猜是指「统 计上的显着效果」。 就这点，我想请有受过统计训练或是科学背景的朋友一起想想： 统计上没有显着效果是否就等於没有效果？ 在统计分析的时候，为什麽我们会那麽重视显着性(P-value）？显着性的意义为何？ 举个例子： 今天有A、B两族群，A族群的平均寿命是 73±5 yrs ，B族群是 71±4 yrs。 如果要检验这两族群的平均寿命在统计上有无显着差异～得到的P一定大於0.05 那麽～究竟这两族群的平均寿命有差异吗？ 有统计上的显着差异吗？ 如果没有 统计上的显着差异，我们就可以说他们是一样的吗？ 这跟统计学的原理有关，有兴趣的朋友真的可以好好想想，这是连专业研究人员 都有可能会犯的谬误。 先这样～ 如有疏漏～敬请不吝指教～ 一起讨论、学习！ 甘虾！ --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 114.42.164.208