This essay will analyze the comparison of research on the effects of eccentric training, eccentric – concentric training and eccentric – concentric training combined with an isometric contraction in the treatment of lateral elbow tendinopathy by Dimitrios Stasinopoulos and Ioannis Stasinopoulos. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay The title was not long, this is good as it can catch the reader's attention (Litwak, 1996). It is important to grab the reader's attention, so that they have an understanding of what the research will entail. Furthermore, this works in association with the title which succinctly refers to the topic of the research, so they can understand whether the research would be relevant to them (Paiva, Lima, & Paiva, 2012). An abstract is intended to provide the reader with a summary of the different subheadings, for example the method, results and conclusions (Andrade, 2011), this has actually been done by the researchers. This is crucial to allow readers to easily conclude what the research is about. On the other hand, flaws have been found and the statement of further research needed may suggest to the reader that there is no significance in the findings due to the importance behind the statement made. In the introduction, one purpose was made prevalent. This is fundamental in the investigation of variables (Barrass, 1978), so there is a direct approach demonstrated by researchers to readers. This can provide readers with confidence that researchers have a direction they are heading. Reference was made to research conducted by other researchers. This is important as it shows previous work done by researchers and how it can impact the researcher's current work (Kennett, 2014). A case study is a complete account of a single individual (Thomas, 2016), however, the problem that may be noted is that the case of a single individual cannot be equated to that of everyone else in the population, so there is reduced population validity (Shuttleworth, 2009). Additionally, a pilot study consists of smaller studies that take place *add ref* that allow researchers to identify any errors made and correct the errors (Leon, Davis, & Kraemer, 2011). This would be beneficial to researchers because there would be a lower probability of defects, they would have the knowledge and awareness not to make the same mistakes in their research; as it would reduce the credibility of the research. Additionally, an objective was provided as to why the research was conducted, because there was no previous research that had compared the effectiveness of exercise programs in relation to the management of lateral elbow tendinopathy. This is crucial as it demonstrates that other researchers have investigated similar areas (Brian Haynes, 2006) but also indicates how previous research can be taken into account and implemented into ongoing research (Agnoli, n.d.). A parallel group design involving a randomized single-center trial was used; it can be analyzed that participants were assigned to a treatment based on random assignment. (Stasinopoulos and Stasinopoulos, 2016). This is advantageous because random allocation reduces the chances that biases are involved (Pannucci and Wilkins, 2011); simultaneously reducing the chances of order effects, such as tiredness or signs of boredom, leading to false conclusions being drawn. An independent variable was not provided alongside a dependent variable. These variables should be evidentwithin research (Babbie, 2008). This is because readers would find it challenging to understand what is being changed and measured. The mention of variables should allow the reader to easily understand the approach the researchers are trying to take. Since this does not happen, it may be noted that key aspects of the research are ignored, thus decreasing the validity of the research. Since this research was conducted in Greece, it can be assumed that the majority, if not all of the participants are from that country. This is a limiting factor, as it can be argued from research that there is a decrease in population validity; due to findings being limited to those within the sample (Houser, 1998). Furthermore, the results may not be replicable in another country (Kirk and Miller, 2005), therefore this reduces the reliability of the research. No details about the participants were provided, for example the researchers did not indicate the gender of the participants and their profession. This is a weakness of the study as one gender may be more susceptible to lateral elbow tendinopathy (Woo, Renstr?me Arnoczky, 2007). Additionally, occupations can have a direct influence on the development of lateral elbow tendinopathy, such as working in a job where the wrist is overused, so specific details should be provided so that a relationship can be recognized and taken into account. Since a specific gender or occupation is more susceptible to it, this would affect the overall validity of the research. In the results section it was advertised that the participants were amateur tennis players. It can be argued that the findings may not be applicable to individuals who differ from tennis players. Therefore the results are limited to the study participants. Therefore, a decrease in the overall external validity of this research work (Trochim, Donnelly, & Arora, 2016). Additionally, a small sample of 34 participants was illustrated. This is problematic since the participants were divided into three groups, meaning that the subjects could not have been evenly distributed across the groups. The research findings cannot be generalized and lack validity and reliability because the sample size was too small (Walliman, Donnelly, & Arora, 2015); 34 tennis players do not reflect the general population. The measurement tool used in the research was the visual analogue scale, to measure pain and functionality was also measured using grip strength without pain. The visual analogue scale is subjective as people have different levels of pain tolerance, as such to state conclusively that the results would be relevant to everyone due to individual experiences of pain is not particularly well conducted research. Therefore, due to its subjective nature, it has lower validity for the population (Yang and Tsui, 2002). On the other hand, it is a commonly used scale throughout research, so it can be argued that it has advantages and is an appropriate scale to apply (Bjur, Silver, & Gallagher, 2001). Painless grip strength was another measurement tool applied by researchers. It was a good tool to use because it is also highly recognized in research *add ref.* Over the course of the research, participants performed it three times with a one-minute break between each attempt *add ref*. This reinforces the idea that the measurement tool is well known, but also indicates that there was a valid thought process behind the researchers' reasoning for adopting it. From now on the clinical justification for why it was used is highlighted; as suchit can be demonstrated that thanks to clinical reasoning there is credibility in the research and results. Insufficient detail was provided as to why the researchers had done specific things, such as 3 out of 15 repetitions. The minimal details provided may leave the reader confused as vital aspects of the research are not explained; henceforth through this, it can disengage a reader *add ref.* This further reiterates that research can have reduced validity but can also have reduced credibility. Finally, informed consent was given by the participants. this shows that the research has complied with ethical guidelines, is henceforth deemed ethically appropriate and can expand its credibility. *add reference* In turn, if the research were to have further credibility, more researchers would be interested in it, but this would also allow the reader to understand that no harm was caused to the participants in any format, such as mental or physical* add ref*. Recognizing that no harm was caused to participants allows the research to be accepted by a wider audience. *add ref* Results: One error noted in the research was that no hypothesis was stated. A hypothesis is a statement that predicts a connection between variables *add reference*, however eliminating a hypothesis does not provide any research guidance to readers. *add reference* Therefore, by doing so, readers are left dubious about the research; potentially defusing them *add ref.* The researchers performed a paired t-test which is a statistical test. This choice of tests is appropriate as it allows researchers to make comparisons between their data sets *add ref*; comparisons were made between post-treatment improvements and pre-treatment baseline. Concluding that the t-test meets the criteria of what it set out to do. The paired t-test works in combination with the significance level of 0.05 and the p-value of 0.0005. The p-value must be equal to the significance level of 0.05 or less. Doing so would allow researchers to conclude that there is a statistically significant result *add red*. Theoretically this is a significant result, but on the other hand, since a hypothesis has not been identified, it can be summarized that neither a null nor an experimental hypothesis are accepted or rejected. In turn, research findings may have lower validity and thus lower public acceptance. *add ref* A significance level of 0.05 is widely used in research *add ref* which is not highly sensitive due to the possibility of causing mortality. Sensitive research must be equal to or less than 0.01 to be classified as significant data. *add ref.* Gender bias was perceived within this research; this is mainly due to treatment groups containing more females than males, so one gender is not adequately embodied *add ref.* Furthermore, the results of the results have reduced population validity, meaning that the results may not necessarily reflect the general population *add ref* Discussion: The researcher highlighted a definitive statement stating the need for further research. This was illustrated when the researchers said that well-designed future studies were needed to confirm the current study's findings. This statement best exemplifies the uncertainty researchers have in their findings. *Add reference* Therefore, uncertainty can transfer to readers, so they too can start to doubt the results. Furthermore,.