Critical appraisal

0 Comment

The two groups underwent constant evaluation over the subsequent 12 months and results documented. The study showed that the endurance shuttle walk (ESWT) depicted a significant increase from about 190 to 920s. Additionally, the score marked on the St George Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) declined moderately to about 2.5 points. The researchers conclusively asserted that there was no significant disparity between the two groups in consideration of ESWT or even the quality of life (QoL). Discussion The article begins by briefly describing prior studies, which have been known to suggest that the impact of COPD techniques of rehabilitation tend to weaken over time. The article, therefore, has explicit focus on the effects of additional exercise sessions. It is also evident that the researchers sought to direct all their investigation on patients suffering from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. This distinctive attention on the effect of supplementary exercise on the research subjects depicts study issue specificity. On the other hand, the scholars’ focus on COPD patients is a clear indicator of target population particularity. In regard to mode of investigation, the authors of this article clearly outline the methodology, which includes recruitment of research participants on the basis of their suitability and statistical analysis of the results after the examination period. For this reason, it is apparent that the outcomes, just like the subject matter, target population, and method of research, are highly specific. This is an aspect illustrated by the researchers’ discovery that, the conventional pulmonary rehabilitation program significantly improves QoL and ESWT of COPD patients, while there was no significant change over the additional exercise sessions. As mentioned earlier, the researchers randomized subjection of COPD patients to treatments. This happened after the initial rehabilitation period that took place for seven weeks. There were 118 COPD patients that accepted the invitation to participate in this second phase of the research. These patients were divided randomly into groups of 20 individuals. It is imperative to note that these groups largely fell under two principal categories, that is, intervention and control groups. The intervention groups underwent additional training exercises, such as those adopted during the seven week program, while control groups were not subject to any extra exercise. Additionally, individuals in control groups were not supposed to engage in any form of exercise at home and the two groups also went to evaluation sessions during different dates. In addition to being randomly assigned to the mentioned groups, other aspects were also accounted for in the randomization process. These factors include gender, whereby approximately 38% of men and 62% of women were present in both the control and intervention groups. The other base for randomization was age, and this had four categories including 60, 60 to 69, 70 to 79, and above 80 years age brackets. The researchers also took into consideration factors such as patients’ smoking tendencies and their forced expiratory volume (FEV). Clearly, Linneberg et al. (2012) accounted for virtually all factors relevant to the