Summary of findings 2. Summary of findings 2. INTERCESSORY PRAYER (RETROSPECTIVE) versus STANDARD CARE.
| INTERCESSORY PRAYER (RETROSPECTIVE) versus STANDARD CARE for blood stream infections | ||||||
|
Patient or population: patients with blood stream infections Settings: in hospital Intervention: INTERCESSORY PRAYER (RETROSPECTIVE) versus STANDARD CARE | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of Participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Control | INTERCESSORY PRAYER (RETROSPECTIVE) versus STANDARD CARE | |||||
| Death by end of trial | Medium risk population | RR 0.93 (0.84 to 1.03) | 3393 (1) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate1,2 | ||
| 302 per 1000 | 281 per 1000 (254 to 311) | |||||
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio; | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidance High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate. | ||||||
1 Randomisation not well described
2 Very rare type of study