You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
| Title |
Is reiki or prayer effective in relieving pain during hospitalization for cesarean? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Sao Paulo Medical Journal, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1590/1516-3180.2016.0267031116 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Guilherme Augusto Rago Ferraz, Meline Rosseto Kron Rodrigues, Silvana Andrea Molina Lima, Marcelo Aparecido Ferraz Lima, Gabriela Lopes Maia, Carlos Alberto Pilan, Michelle Sako Omodei, Ana Cláudia Molina, Regina El Dib, Marilza Vieira Cunha Rudge |
| Abstract |
This systematic review compared reiki and prayer with drug use for relieving pain during hospitalization for cesarean, given that the popularity of integrative medicine and spiritual healing has been increasing. It had the aim of evaluating whether reiki or prayer is effective in relieving pain during cesarean section. Systematic review with meta-analysis conducted at Botucatu Medical School, UNESP, São Paulo, Brazil. The following databases were searched up to March 2016: MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and CENTRAL. Randomized controlled trials published in English or Portuguese were included in the review. Two reviewers independently screened eligible articles, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. A GRADE table was produced to evaluate the risk of bias. There was evidence with a high risk of bias showing a statistically significant decrease in pain score through use of reiki and prayer, in relation to the protocol group: mean difference = -1.68; 95% confidence interval: -1.92 to -1.43; P < 0.00001; I2 = 92%. Furthermore, there was no statistically significant difference in heart rate or systolic or diastolic blood pressure. Evidence with a high risk of bias suggested that reiki and prayer meditation might be associated with pain reduction. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| El Salvador | 1 | 17% |
| Antigua and Barbuda | 1 | 17% |
| Spain | 1 | 17% |
| Italy | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 67% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 17% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 33 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 12% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 6% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 12% |
| Unknown | 15 | 45% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 15% |
| Psychology | 2 | 6% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 3% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 15 | 45% |