The evidence for the efficacy of medication and non-pharmacological approaches to optimise function is discussed, including exercise, education and self-management, inhibitors pulmonary rehabilitation, chest physiotherapy, psychosocial support, and nutrition. Likely co-morbidities and their management are presented, and surgical options and palliative care are discussed. Evidence and approaches

for the reduction of risk factors such as smoking cessation, medication, vaccination, and oxygen therapy are presented. The section on self management HA-1077 purchase promotes a multidisciplinary team approach. Evidence underpinning the management of acute exacerbations is presented. This includes guidelines to confirm the exacerbation and categorise its severity, pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions, indicators for hospitalisation or ventilation, and discharge planning. Appendices provide information on inhaler devices, and long-term oxygen therapy. “
“The utilisation of resistance training in patients with chronic heart failure

is an area of great interest and potential. In their recent systematic review, Hwang et al (2010) provide a clear argument supporting the hypothesis that resistance training could improve peripheral muscle strength and ultimately functional capacity in people with chronic heart failure. Their review reports the meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials; however, both the title and primary conclusion should be considered with caution. The authors are to FDA-approved Drug Library in vivo be commended on the presentation of their methodology and for rating the quality of included trials using the PEDro scale (Maher et al 2003). However, all systematic reviews are limited 17-DMAG (Alvespimycin) HCl by the quality of the studies they include and this is particularly relevant here. It is well documented that poorly conducted randomised controlled trials may yield misleading results. Results suggest a clinically important and statistically significant

30–50% exaggeration of treatment efficacy when results of studies of low methodological quality are pooled (Moher et al 1999). While Hwang et al report the quality of included trials using PEDro scores, they appear not to have taken the next step and interpreted the meta-analysis in the context of these quality ratings. Although heterogeneity is mentioned, its consideration in having combined the studies should be detailed, as should the quality of the studies excluded from analysis. Thus, readers should be circumspect about their interpretation of results reported by Hwang et al. Specifically, the title and conclusion of the paper selectively highlight one of multiple primary outcome measures, that being the only significant finding of the review. A more plausible conclusion would be that resistance training may improve six-minute walk distance and at best their findings are hypothesis-generating.