Randomized Critical Appraisal Controlled Trial

¶ … Randomized Controlled Trial The objective of this study is to carry out a critical appraisal of the article titled "Physical activity long-term after liver transplantation yields a better quality of life." (Rongles, St.-pniewska, Lewandowska et al. 2011 p 126). The authors investigate the relationship between quality of life and physical activity in a randomly selected patients. Validity of the Results The goal of the RCA (rapid critical appraisal) is to evaluate the validity of the research results, and the relevance of the results for the treatment and intervention of liver complications.

The results are valid because the authors collect data of Group A and Group B and compare their results to present the outcome of the physical activities after transplantation. The Group B indulges in weekly physical and recreational activities that include cycling (53.8%), swimming (30.9%) and hiking (30.9%) compared to Group A with zero weekly physical activity. A comparative analysis of the quality of life of the two groups supports the validity of the study because the results of group A are substantially worse with reference to the quality of life assessment.

However, better results are recorded for group B with reference to BP (bodily pain) outcomes, PF (physical functioning), SF (social functioning) and GH (general health). The researchers randomly selected group A and group B for the experimental and controlled group. However, the author selected the group B for the experimental group and group B, controlled group, from the patients of OLT (orthotopic liver transplantation) who filled the questionnaire.

After the data analysis has been carried out, the researchers labeled group A as patients who do not indulge in a physical activity and group B as patients who perform a physical activity at least once in a week. The data analysis shows that the control group is appropriate because the same number of participants are used for both the control group and experimental group.

However, the authors concealed a random assignment from the subject participants to eliminate the possibility of bias in the experiment using a random method to select the participants and the randomization was concealed from the participants. Rongles et al. (2011) used "a modified SF-36 (36-Item Short Form Survey Instrument, RAND 36-Item Health Survey 1.0 Questionnaire Items" (p 128) as an instrument for the experiment. The tool is considered reliable and accurate, and "has been used in numerous scientific studies" (Rongles et al. 2011 p 128) making the instruments be reliable and valid.

The results reveal that the subjects in each group are similar with regards to their baseline health and demographic. For example, 13 participants (9.