Critical Appraisal: Ovarian Cancer Research Paper Example

{Author Name [first-name middle-name-initials last-name]}
{Institution Affiliation [name of Author’s institute]}
Ovarian cancer is a major disease impacting women and treatment of this problem remains a challenge despite of medical advancements. Indefinite studies and researches have been conducted with the goal of discovering accurate and efficient treatment of ovarian cancer. This essay critically examines five studies on ovarian cancer. The chosen studies are centered on UK and Europe, discusses the associated treatments and survival chances. The studies are population and cohort based discussing the trends and incidences.
Sharma et al., conducted a cohort based study (2012), on the ovarian cancer women in UK. The data was collected from national cancer registries following up around 48,000 women during a period of three years. The study does a good job in collecting a large data however the results show baseline characteristics only and not focusing on improvement of treatment capabilities. The study had ample data but lacks on doing a qualitative study by examining the people’s perspective (Sharma et al., 2012).
Coleman et al., undertook a population based study from six countries (2011), covering data of approximately 2.4 million adult population diagnosed with various forms of cancer including ovarian cancer. The study is a first of its kind focusing on cancer survival at international scale and aims at improving health policies for an enhanced cancer survival ratio. The study covers a large population however it lacks in doing a focused study on ovarian cancer. Each cancer patient undergoes a different level of stress and condition, generalizing the study might help in certain area however the results cannot be applied to all the different kinds of cancer patients. Specifically, in case of ovarian cancer the patients are women facing a different kind of challenge arising from biological and social pressures. The study of improving ovarian cancer survival rates could have been better off with being a focused study (Coleman, 2011).
Marcus, et al., in their study (2014), observes that ovarian cancer is the leading cause of death resulting from gynecological malignancies. The study focuses on analyzing the current treatments and associated challenges in the ovarian cancer treatment. Marcus et al., does a case control study by examining the existing recommendations and data of women diagnosed with cancer. The study does not perform any form of research of its own and is dependent on the existing literature and past studies. It consists of opinions and assertions based on their study of literature and examination of data. It would have a more lasting impact on the formation of policies and improvement of treatment methods if some level of systematic review would have been applied in reaching to conclusions and assertions (Marcus, Maxwell, Darcy, Hamilton, & McGuire, 2014).
Oberaigner and co-authors in observes the survival chances of ovarian cancer patients across Europe in their 2012 study. The study concludes that ovarian cancer is one of the deadliest disease impacting its victims and resulting in high death rate. The study poses an excellent question on the survival chances of infected patients across Europe and seeks if the survival rate has improved or not. It does a qualitative and a cohort based study across 24 countries. The study does a good job on its data collection however the observations and suggestions are not strong (Oberaigner, Minicozzi, Bielska-Lasota, Allemani, De Angelis, Mangone, & Sant, 2012).
Waldmann, Eisemann, & Katalinic, in their study (2013), examine the trends surrounding the ovarian cancer patients. The study is qualitative and cohort based with case-control examination in order to determine the trends related to the deadly disease. The study observes that there has been decline in the spread of the disease in the past decade. It does a mortality and incidence detection trend analysis presenting some interesting facts and data and suggestions. The study does a good job however it is centered only around Germany that makes it difficult to apply the suggestions across the whole of Europe or any other country like UK (Waldmann, Eisemann, & Katalinic, 2013).

References:

Coleman, M. P., Forman, D., Bryant, H., Butler, J., Rachet, B., Maringe, C., & Richards,
M. A. (2011). Cancer survival in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and the
UK, 1995–2007 (the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership): an analysis of
population-based cancer registry data. The Lancet, 377(9760), 127-138.
Marcus, C. S., Maxwell, G. L., Darcy, K. M., Hamilton, C. A., & McGuire, W. P. (2014).
Current approaches and challenges in managing and monitoring treatment response in
ovarian cancer. Journal of Cancer, 5(1), 25.
Oberaigner, W., Minicozzi, P., Bielska-Lasota, M., Allemani, C., De Angelis, R., Mangone, L.,
& Sant, M. (2012). Survival for ovarian cancer in Europe: the across-country variation
did not shrink in the past decade. Acta Oncologica, 51(4), 441-453.
Sharma, A., Apostolidou, S., Burnell, M., Campbell, S., Habib, M., Gentry‐Maharaj, A.,
& Menon, U. (2012). Risk of epithelial ovarian cancer in asymptomatic women with
ultrasound‐detected ovarian masses: a prospective cohort study within the UK
collaborative trial of ovarian cancer screening (UKCTOCS). Ultrasound in Obstetrics &
Gynecology, 40(3), 338-344.
Waldmann, A., Eisemann, N., & Katalinic, A. (2013). Epidemiology of malignant cervical,
corpus uteri and ovarian tumours–current data and epidemiological trends. Geburtshilfe
und Frauenheilkunde, 73(2), 123.