The following is a brief analysis of two articles both covering on vaccines used to protect against Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) and cervical cancer in women. One of the paper was a stratified cohort investigation of the comparing the immunogenicity and safety of CervarixTM and Gardasil ®

Both articles are peer reviewed. This was established by searching for the authenticity of the two articles through search engines that contain only peer reviewed scholarly literature. The specific search engine used for this review was Google scholarGoogle search engine.

Both articles are up to date. They cover recent literature on the two commonly used vaccines, Cervarix, Gardasil. In addition, the publication dates for both articles is October 2009, thus meet the criteria for recommended article for any research, that is, articles less than 5 years.

The research papers used cohort studies targeting women in the reproductive age. One of the papers is a systemic review or meta

The two articlesand reports about the findings. The Meta-analysis questions also strictly stick to its purpose. The papers and messages also clearly articulate main issues of concern to the research remaining focused all through.

on on the comparison and contrasts of the efficiency of immunity provided by cervical cancer vaccines. This is because the metatwo vaccinesGardasil through measurement of titers. The result indicating higher titers with Cervarix compared to Gardasil.

The participants ( patients) in both papers were blind to the study. In the research paper, it was observer-blind based while the meta-analysis focused on both the observer and the patients. It was, therefore, a double blind study.

The groups under investigations were similar at the start of the study. The cohorts were randomly selected from women within arch paper, the group receiving Cervarix was given in the order of 0, 1,6 while the Gardasil group received treatment in the order of 0, 2, 6 months respectively. The study sample was also adequately selected in both studies. The meta-analysis involved six articles covering a total of 47, 236 patients and the research an adequate. The research involved a study population of 1106 patients.

The research methods used in both studies are appropriate. Being blind studies and using controlled trials ensures that there is no obvious bias in the study. The study populations used are also sound which increases the confidence level from the study findings. Likewise, the statistical analysis of data from these studies appropriately handle the data.

As earlier indicated, the studies have a clear focus and consistent on the objectives. The conclusions from the findings of the two studies are derived from massive information collected during the study. For instance, the research study on.