I don't think they say anything about that being significant. They are saying that there were no difference in mortality rates but there were differences in duration of fever and length of hospital stay. At least that's how I read it - two sig. results, one non-sig result. So maybe the great intervening power was powerful only to make things somewhat better but not actually save lives?!
Marie
Frigo, Lenore wrote:
From the Leibovici article, I am directly cut and pasting...
"Mortality was 28.1% (475/1691) in the intervention group and 30.2% (514/1702) in the control group (P for difference=0.4)"
Note the p = 0.4, does this make sense for a "significant" result? Or just a typo? Or is this some statistical thing that I am not getting?
-Lenore Frigo Shasta College
-----Original Message----- From: Stephen Black [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 8:45 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences Subject: On the efficacy o
But I still wonder about the one published in the British Medical Journal (Leibovici, L. (2001). Effects of remote, retroactive intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients with bloodstream infection: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2001: 145-145)
(abstract at http://tinyurl.com/4qjuw ). This one appears never to have been discredited.
Given some hints in Leibovici's background, my guess is that this is a deliberate hoax (note its presence in the special Christmas issue of BMJ) intended to provoke discussion. Yet I don't think he falsified data. So how he did he do it?
Stephen
___________________________________________________
Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. tel: (819) 822-9600 ext 2470
Department of Psychology
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- You are currently subscribed to tips as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
