Prayer doubles IVF success rate

New Scientist ^ | 09:53 05 October 01 | Emma Young

[AndrewC]

The World's No.1 Science & Technology News Service

Prayer doubles IVF success rate

09:53   05  October  01

Emma Young

Prayer can double the success rate of IVF treatments, according to a double blind study published in the respected Journal of Reproductive Medicine.

A team in the US asked groups of people around the world to pray for pregnancy in one half of almost 200 women undergoing the fertility treatment in South Korea. The prayer groups were given only photographs of the women, and the women were unaware of the study.

Despite controls for age, length of infertility, type of infertility and number of prior attempts to become pregnant following IVF, 50 per cent of the women who were prayed for became pregnant, compared with 26 per cent of women in the control group. An independent statistician in the US had randomised the women into the two groups.

"Several factors are known to either positive or negatively affect the success of IVF procedures. The majority of physicians however would not consider prayer intervention to be one of the them," write the team, led by Rogerio Lobo at Columbia University in New York. "We set out with the expectation that we would show no benefit of prayer."

Power of prayer

The study took place between December 1998 and March 1999. The 199 women were aged from 26 to 46 and were treated at the Cha General Hospital in Seoul

Members of various Christian denominations in the US, Canada and Australia were given photographs of half the women, in batches of five at a time.

They were asked to either to pray directly for an increased pregnancy rate in these women, or to pray that these prayers would be effective. The prayers continued throughout the three-week course of IVF treatment.

The fertilisation rates in each group of women were similar. But the embryo implantation rate was significantly higher in the prayer group. The number of multiple pregnancies was also higher in this group.

Journal reference: Journal of Reproductive Medicine (vol 6)

09:53   05  October  01

[AndrewC]

The pregnant women were unaware of the prayer. This is a double blind and is indicative of true science. The JRM article is here

Comments, explanations?

[AndrewC]

Ping

[AndrewC]

Ping

[AndrewC]

This would allow the determination of effectiveness ratings of different faiths, and thus, a determination of the "best" faith. Could get ugly.

Either it works or it doesn't. It apparently works.

[Dataman]

This would allow the determination of effectiveness ratings of different faiths, and thus, a determination of the "best" faith. Could get ugly.

It wouldn't determine the effectiveness of a faith necessarily. There are many factors involved. I believe, however, we'd be able to weed out deaf gods.

[Nebullis]

Hmmm. Intercessional prayers improve the chances of pregnancy by a 1/4 for those women undergoing a procedure resulting in wasting of embryos. Couldn't be God, then, could it? Must be the Devil. (Assuming, of course that correlation equals causation.)

[AndrewC]

(Assuming, of course that correlation equals causation.)

Okay then, what is the purpose of any scientific trial?

[Nebullis]

I'm giving you a hint at why a study like this would be published.

Now, from the paper, the normal IVF rate is 32.8% Which is about the same as the overall rate of the group of 200. That is, for the control group, there is an equally significant depression of IVF rate.

[Nebullis]

From the paper.

The data demonstrate a 50% statistically significant pregnancy rate in the IP treatment group; it was well above the 26% pregnancy rate in the control group, which in turn was similar in the crude pregnancy rate for this IVF program during the time period. The 50% pregnancy rate is also statistically higher than the overall pregnancy rate in the program for the year before the trial period (32.8%).

It's unclear to me what distinguishes "this IVF program"(26%) from "program for the year before the trial period" (32.8%).

[AndrewC]

I'm giving you a hint at why a study like this would be published.

Because you spent someone elses money on the study and they expect an answer, one way or the other?

None of the authors are employed by religious organizations, and we were not asked by any religious groups to conduct this trial, nor did we seek religious advice at any time.

[Nebullis]

Another hint: the single largest group of people opposed to IVF and the concomitant production of embryos is a prayerful one.

[AndrewC]

It's unclear to me what distinguishes "this IVF program"(26%) from "program for the year before the trial period" (32.8%).

The numbers speak for themselves. In the trial, those that did not receive IP achieved pregnancy at a 26% rate. This is compared to the "normal" 28% rate described in the paper --- The pregnancy rate for IVF-ET increased from 20.7% deliveries per retrieval in 1984 to 28% in 1997 (the last United States survey). I presume this is within the "noise" level. This is compared to the total 38.5% for this study, all pregnancies considered and the 32.5% achieved by the center in the Jan-Nov 1998 time frame. The 32.5% level may be within the "noise" level for the 28% rate described as the last US survey.

[AndrewC]

Another hint: the single largest group of people opposed to IVF and the concomitant production of embryos is a prayerful one.

So if praying helps people survive murder attempts, it will convince the people who pray to support murder attempts?

[Nebullis]

This is compared to the "normal" 28% rate described in the paper

No, it's compared to a normal rate of 32.8%.

[Nebullis]

So if praying helps people survive murder attempts, it will convince the people who pray to support murder attempts?

LOL... perhaps prayer will also help the success rate of stem cell research.

[AndrewC]

No, it's compared to a normal rate of 32.8%.

The paper compares their numbers in their fashion, my post compares their numbers in my way. The statement is my statement. The 26% achieved in the study in a certain population I am comparing to a nationwide survey of 28%. This is a measure of the technique(as practiced in the US). The 32.5% is a measure of the clinic from Jan-Nov 1998. It may or may not be indicative of what should be expected in the study as a whole. Doctors may not be the same etc. etc. They are all data points. What can be said of the 32.5% is that it may be a closer measure of the expectations of the study than the U.S. survey.

[AndrewC]

LOL... perhaps prayer will also help the success rate of stem cell research.

It is. Stem cells are being found everywhere.

[Nebullis]

Normal success rates are much closer to 50%. I don't know where you get your numbers but it isn't correct to include distant dates as well as recent ones.

[AndrewC]

Normal success rates are much closer to 50%. I don't know where you get your numbers but it isn't correct to include distant dates as well as recent ones.

All of the numbers I quoted were from the study. The oldest were quoted in the paper and are from references 1 and 2. Where did you get the 50%?