Leslie and Buckley (2010) stated that the population they studied was Caucasian males and females between the ages of 47 and 81 years of age. There were twenty two total participants 18 were male and 4 were female. The intervention was identified as
Patients attended outpatient supervised exercise training sessions twice a week for 12 weeks…. Each session began with a 10 to 15 minute warm up period, consisting of free arm and leg movements, stretches and breathing exercises. This was followed by 22 minutes of exercise training, comprising of aerobic and low intensity resistance exercises…. A 10 minute cool down period completed the exercise session, followed by 10 minutes of relaxation (Leslie & Buckley, 2010 p. 135).
In the article The Clinical Effectiveness of Exercise Training for Patients with Chronic Heart Failure, functional capacity, validated measure of quality of life (QOL), New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification, and brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) were the defined outcome measures.
Randomized Controlled Trial
The study by Leslie and Buckley (2010) is not a randomized controlled trial. To have a randomized controlled trial according to Knapp (1998), a trial is carried out with two groups. One of the groups is a treatment group and the other is a control group. In the study Leslie and Buckley (2010) there is one group and they are all given the intervention. This would be more of a correlation study. The writer believes that a correlational study was the correct study to do with the limited amount of research on this topic. There needs to be a starting point for the research to continue. The some data that came out of from this study showed to be significant. The writer believes that the research is worth continuing, but to do the research as a quasi-experimental study to hopefully show more valid data. That data could provide more evidence of the efficacy of exercise in the chronic heart failure (CHF) patients (Leslie & Buckley, 2010).
Intervention and Control Groups
According to Leslie and Buckley (2010) there was only one group and that would have been identified as the intervention group, there was no control group. There was no randomization that can be identified. There was no identification of participants into separate groups. The study examined the participants over the 12 weeks, but did not state if they had started at different times. What could have made a difference in the outcomes was that Leslie and Buckley (2010) stated that there were eighteen males out of the twenty two participants and also in the results they state the statistics about the male participants, but nothing about the female statistics.
Possible Blind Study and Ethical Considerations
Leslie and Buckley (2010) did not state any information about a blind or double blind study. The writer does not believe that blinding would have been appropriate for this particular study. Most of the data was from exercise tolerance and plasma BNP...