It was good that the working title of their report was itself the primary aim indicated in the abstract. The authors were apparently determined to be consistent throughout. However, they failed to narrow down the research title, which was too general. The abstract specifically said that the patients were 42 men but the title overlooked this. Also, though the title may be understandable to readers of varying backgrounds, the abstract looked informal and deviated from the usual academic tone. It had sub-headings, some of which were composed of phrases instead of recognized sentences. The abstract’s opening line “Aim: To assess changes in quality of life (QoL) and oxygen consumption produced by two different patterns of physical training in patients with congestive heart failure (CHF)” was certainly a phrase. Though the abstract gave an accurate synopsis of the report, it was just puzzling why such informality was allowed to be published by professors and by an international journal. The report did mention how participants were allocated into three groups as part of the intervention process, but failed to specify the randomization technique used.
The introduction part was not very direct in conveying its message to readers, whoever they may be. There was never any mention for whom the report was intended – whether it was for aspiring cardiologists, for physical therapists, for patients with CHF beyond the study’s jurisdiction, or for nearly anyone interested in the research. Moreover, the scientific explanations provided in the introduction lacked statistical backing, which would have strengthened the need or the rationale for conducting the research (University of Guelph, n.d.). For instance, the authors merely explained the meaning of congestive heart failure and its association with high mortality the way a medical dictionary would. The meaning did not prove the necessity for employing physical exercises to improve the QoL and oxygen