I will pay for the following essay Critical Appraisal of the Article How long should outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation be. The essay is to be 5 pages with three to five sources, with in-text citatio

I will pay for the following essay Critical Appraisal of the Article How long should outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation be. The essay is to be 5 pages with three to five sources, with in-text citations and a reference page.

As the title of the journal article suggests, the study was a randomized and controlled trial. The subject population, which comprised of one hundred COPD patients, was randomly assigned to the usual pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) program that lasts for seven weeks, as well as, a four week PR program. Measurement bases or intervention measures used included the Endurance Shuttle Walk Test (ESWT), and Incremental Shuttle Walk Test (ISWT). During this research, the scholars drew statistical comparisons within and between the respective groups. Evident from the PICO model above, the article seeks to provide evidence based information to medical practitioners. It is also discernible from its title, that the trial article is clearly focused on determining the suitable duration for a pulmonary rehabilitation program. Specificity is further emphasized by the scholars focus on four and seven-week PR programs, as well as, selection of COPD patients. Rather than just studying subjects of random demographics, the scholars settled for males and females falling within the 70 to 78 age bracket, and whose COPD is stable. This is important as it avoids ambiguity that would arise if COPD patients from a widely varying age bracket are examined. Additionally, stability of COPD patients provides assurance that, reactions to PR would not vary too radically thus providing inconclusive results. Was the assignment of patients to treatments randomized? As suggested by the article’s title, the trial of COPD subjects is randomized. This is done by dividing the group of one hundred patients into two, one subject to the four-week PR program, and the other to the seven-week therapy plan. This randomization plan, however, does not show the basis for assignment of subjects to either group. It would have been better for the researchers to show the mode of randomization, in order to provide sufficient proof that, indeed either group gave a fair representation of the entire population. Were all of the patients who entered the trial properly accounted for at its conclusion? The scholars account for every subject, showing those that completed the programs and those that did not. For instance, in both groups, 41 patients completed, while nine failed due to reasons such as COPD exacerbation and other ailments, as well as, personal reasons. Accounting for patients is important, as it shows that the greater percentage of the subject population successfully engaged in the trial and it is also an indicator that results are indicative of the entire study.