Submited on: 30 Apr 2012 09:01:22 PM GMT
Published on: 01 May 2012 05:01:54 PM GMT
Student review
Posted by Ms. Tracy Liu on 21 Nov 2016 03:38:16 AM GMT Reviewed by Interested Peers

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    The article supports the value of excercise as a adjunct therapy in management of chronic heart failure such that it improves the quality of life and patient mobility based on 6 minutes walk test and VO2 max evaluation. 

  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    The idea of novelty really do not apply in this form of articles as it is author's intend to evaluate the value of excerise as an adjunct therapy in HF based on clinical trials that has been done in the past. 

  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    Based on the four primary literature that the author had included in this article, I don't believe there's a clear conclusion in the benefit of excercise in HF patient, especial in elderly which is the population with the highest risk. Though all four publication identified improvement in quality of life to an extend, the objective measures such as biomarker, 6MWT and VO2 max shows very inconsistent results among the chosen studies. 

  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    I think the paper can benefit by including additional and more current literatures.

  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    No. Though the paper adds additional support in the value of excercise as an adjunct therapy in management of HF, it does not provide sufficient details in guiding clinical decision. This form of recommendation is high individualized and this publication did not draw conclusion on any specifics that would be beneficial in making such decision which include but not limited to infromation on identification of ideal patient population,specific disease condition(classification or HFpEF or HFrEF) type, duration and intensity of excerise, intervention time point etc.  

  • Other Comments:


  • Competing interests:
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
  • References:


  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    Second year pharmacy student and master candidate in pharmaceutical science with cardiology focus

  • How to cite:  Liu T .Student review[Review of the article 'Exercise Prescription in Chronic Disease ' by Siddiqui M].WebmedCentral 2016;7(11):WMCRW003332
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse