The major limitations are the following: - ‘All’ studies had a small number of enrolled COPD patients, ranging from 16 to 92 participants. A fact possibly due to the strict criteria for patient inclusion and the severity of the disease of the patients evaluated. It could be that if the sample size was larger many papers could have confirmed greater differences. - 3 studies (Knowles et al., Lewis et al. & Rogers et al.) were +20 years old. Older papers have a weaker methodological quality and it’s a fact that there are more new insights in respiratory rehabilitation. There’s also more known about the underlying processes of the weight loss in patients with COPD, the training principles,... - 4 studies (Ahnfeldt et al., Sugawara et al. & Vermeeren et al.) reported that the treatment period was too short to achieve a definitive conclusion. - COPD patients are a very heterogeneous group, which …show more content…
For example in the study of Lewis the intervention group was unable to tolerate greater than 240 ml of the isocal. HCN per day in addition to their normal diet because of symptoms of bloating and fullness. - 3 studies (Sugawara et al., Laviolette et al.) were pilot studies and this can be considered as a weakness because of their pilot character. - There is still so many difference between the results of the different studies, which makes it quite impossible to make a clear and unambiguous decision. - In a lot of studies, there was a lack of information regarding the methodological quality of the studies. For example: blinding of the subjects and concealment of the allocation weren’t always explicitly mentioned. - In the study of Creutzberg et al. the control group was taken from the study of Schols et al.. This could be a possible limitation, because each control group has different characteristics. Which can mean if another control group was used other results could have been
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
This study was passed and funded through Congress; however they did not know the full story. The wrong in this study was that the men did not give informed consent and did not receive any treatment. The men were studied till their autopsy, which is obviously death. This sparked much controversy and changed human experimentation forever.
1. What rationale do the author(s) give for conducting the study? The author that is conducting this research is testing the obedience of a subject when dealing with “stocking a victim” by use of a shock generator. There are thirty levels of shock that are generated varying from a slight shock to a severe shock.
In this experiment, scientists, Emily Yau and Mona Howell, conducted an experiment that tested how acidity and radiation affects germination of radish seeds. We had hypothesized the seeds that microwave for 5, 10, and some of the 15 second seeds will grow. The radish seeds in the 1 and 2 teaspoons will sprout. We should accept our hypothesis because in the most part, it was correct. Although most of our data supports our hypothesis, some of our data contradicts our hypothesis.
A risk factor for many other diseases, obesity can affect health and longevity. Weight loss is achievable, and it provides plenty of health benefits. Studies have shown that many people who attempt weight loss regain the weight they lost. The major challenge in managing patients is, therefore, to improve their ability to sustain whatever weight loss can be accomplished. Diet, exercise, and behavioral management are the main sources of treatment, But medication and surgery can be considered in certain individuals.
First of all, the investigators should have respected the people they were going to conduct by obtaining an informed consent, letting the men decide if they want to be a participant after all. Second of all, medical researchers should not have lied to the people about how long this study was going to last. Third of all, both the risks and the benefits of it should have been stated to them so that the men could decide if this experiment is any beneficial to them or not. Lastly, the participants should have been randomly assigned to the control or experimental group without considering their race, class, and gender. Also, the medical researchers should not have the right to give the favored participants the helpful treatment rather than the riskier
These are results that the studied shared, which show the quality it’s trying to focus
The literature review gives justified information for the need of conducting the research. Apart from the introduction, there is no other information concerning the research title that could offer detailed information (Chaliha et a., 2001). Despite giving the justified information in the introduction section the paper should have had the literature review section, thus it did not follow the due steps and format of a research paper. The methodology part follows after the introduction and it discloses the methods used, the design, the people included in the study and how the data was sampled and examined. However, the reasons for choosing the design in the research were not
(Dray, Sarah.) Most suppose that by going on diets, losing weight, and going back to their original eating habits is acceptable. These actions are simply making matters worse for them. “People who diet gain more weight than those who skip the diet route altogether (Dr. Axe.) ”