Critical Analysis of a Research Article on COPD and Muscle Activation

This assignment involves a critical analysis of a research article by Sarlabous et al. (2017) focusing on inspiratory muscle activation in COPD patients, assessed through non-invasive mechanomyographic analysis. The analysis evaluates the article's relevance, reliability, and authority, considering factors like author credentials, publication type, and timeliness. The assignment includes an evaluation of the article's main points, research questions, methods, results, and discussion. The student also provides a critical assessment of the article's organization, literature review, research methods, and overall validity, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of the study and its potential impact on the field of COPD research. The analysis concludes with suggestions for improvement, such as incorporating randomized controlled trials and blinding to enhance validity.

READING CRITICALLY
Harvard Reference (Authors, Date, Title, etc.) of your Article:
Sarlabous, L., Torres, A., Fiz, J. A., Martínez-Llorens, J. M., Gea, J., & Jané, R. (2017). Inspiratory muscle activation increases with
COPD severity as confirmed by non-invasive mechanomyographic analysis. PloS one, 12(5), e0177730.
1. Evaluating your Source/Article Your Evaluation
Relevance
to Your
Topic
Title, Abstract,
Keywords
Considering that Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disorder (COPD) is my research topic,
this research is relevant since its title is based upon inspiratory muscle activity in COPD,
shows similarity to key word search terms like ‘COPD’, ‘muscle activation’ and
‘assessment’. The abstract also shows relevance by discussing on mechanical muscle
activation assessment using non-invasive mechanomyograph analysis,
Reliability/
Authority
Authors:
Named?
Roles/Workplace?
Credentials?
Can contact?
The names of the authors have been clearly mentioned along with the various healthare and
medicinal institutes they are engaged in. There is however, no mention about their
credentials or means of contact.
Publication Type:
Peer-reviewed journal/
conference paper?
Published book or book
chapter?
The study has been published by PloS One, an open access, peer reviewed publisher
dealing with publishing of technology, medicine and science peer reviewed journals.
Publisher:
Reputable?
PlosS One is highly reputable and also engages in publishing of six additional, open access
science and medicine journals
Timeliness Up-to-date? The study is relatively up-to-date, and has published within the last 5 years, that is, 2017.
References Quantity?
Quality?
The study shows a list of 38 references, which is a sufficiently high number, if not more.
Overall Evaluation:
Would you, at this stage, include this
article in your Literature
Review? Justify.
Despite lacking in Author credentials and contacts, I would still include this journal due to
its currency and peer reviewed characteristic of publishing. Scholarly, peer reviewed
articles within a recent time frame have been associated with greater validity,
conclusiveness and correctness (Nicholas et al. 2015).
2. Preparing to Read What is the main gist of the article?

Skim/read
quickly
Abstract Considering the dearth of equipment evaluating the activation of respiratory muscle during the
cycle of breathing in clinical scenarios, the chosen research aimed to assess the effectiveness of
respiratory muscle mechanomyogram (MMG) for non-invasive assessment of inspiratory muscle
mechanical activation.
Intro Strength of inspiratory muscle may be decreased in COPD patients due to pulmonary
hyperinflation, shortening of diaphragm, disrupted muscular capacity of force generation
resulting in hindered pulmonary muscle mechanical effectiveness and the need for non-invasive
assessment of the same, as a diagnostic and screening index.
Section Headings Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion.
Conclusion As per results obtained, inspiratory muscle’s mechanical activation in COPD patients is reported
efficiently by non-linear MLZ (multistate Lempel-Ziv) index calculated by MMG as compared
to RMS (root mean square), due to its capability of not being affected by breathing-associated
noises. Hence, this study reports the efficiency of MMG and its potential to be used in the
evaluation of breathing characteristics of COPD patients.
3. Critical Reading & Note-
Taking
Page Notes
Main topic? 1 Inspiratory muscle activation increases with
COPD severity as confirmed by non-invasive
mechanomyographic analysis
Research questions(s)? 3 Main objectives of the study have been highlighted instead of research questions.
What are the relevant issues
raised in the Literature
Review/Background?
2,3 COPD results in loss of mechanical efficiency in muscles resulting in reduced inspiratory
strength of muscles.
Traditional techniques of RMS are often by breathing noises and cardiac vibrations.
MLZ index recorded by MMG for inspiratory muscle strength evaluation is unaffected
by such noise and hence, deemed to more effective.
What is the Research Method? 1, 3 Experimental Research, not mentioned exclusively but can be understood by reading the
abstract, materials and methods section
What are the relevant
Results/Findings?
1, 9 The MLZ index displayed strong correlation with peak inspiratory mouth pressure in
both COPD (r = 0.80, p < 0.001) and healthy individuals (r = 0.82, p < 0.001). Increased
COPD severity recorded increased muscle activation (r = - 0.68, p = 0.001). Decreased

inspiratory muscle activation was observed in COPD patients as compared to healthy
subjects (7.61 ± 2.06 vs 20.42 ± 10.81).
What are the relevant issues to
emerge from the Discussion?
Results indicate the potential for using non-invasive techniques such as MLS index
measurements using MMG for the estimation of efficiency and mechanical activity of
inspiratory muscles during breathing.
Critical Evaluation:
Is the article well organized and
written logically?
Is the Literature Review
complete?
Are the Research Methods
appropriate?
Is the analysis of the Results
valid?
Does the Discussion come
logically out of the Results?
Does the Discussion relate to the
literature?
Overall?
The article is written in a logical sequence of Introduction, Materials and Methods,
Results, Discussion, Conclusion.
There is no mention of a separate section of literature review but literature discussion can
be found in Introduction and Discussions sections.
Considering the observational and experimental nature of the research topic, an
experimental research design is appropriate (Kazdin 2016).
The analysis of results is valid due to usage of appropriate statistical methods of
correlation to analyse the associations between inspiratory muscle efficacy and COPD
measured using MMG – as identified in the primary objectives.
Discussions have been conducted using the statistical results obtained hence displaying
logical associations.
As evidence by in-texting citations, the discussions have been related to the literature.
Overall, the study paved the way for assessing non-invasive options for COPD muscle
mechanics evaluation but would have improved overall in terms of validity and bias
prevalence if alternative research designs such as a randomized controlled trial and
blinding would have been incorporated (Ledford 2018).

Reference
Kazdin, A.E., 2016. Single-case experimental research designs.
Ledford, J.R., 2018. No randomization? No problem: Experimental control and random assignment in single case research. American
Journal of Evaluation, 39(1), pp.71-90.
Nicholas, D., Watkinson, A., Jamali, H.R., Herman, E., Tenopir, C., Volentine, R., Allard, S. and Levine, K., 2015. Peer review: still
king in the digital age. Learned Publishing, 28(1), pp.15-21.