Provide the citation and attach a pdf of the article (10 pts)Mahase, E. (2020). Covid-19: Vaccine candidate may be more than 90% effective, interim results indicate. BMJ, m4347. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m4347
- What is the abstract of the article? (10 pts)
- Background:
A vaccine candidate developed by Pfizer and BioNTech may be more than 90% effective in preventing covid-19 in participants without prior infection, the first interim analysis of the phase III trial shows.
- Methods:
The research team evaluated the results after 94 cases of covid-19 had been confirmed. The study began in July and has so far enrolled nearly 44 000 participants, just under 39 000 of whom have received a second dose of the mRNA vaccine candidate (as of 8 November).
- Results:
The team’s announcement said, “The case split between vaccinated individuals and those who received the placebo indicates a vaccine efficacy rate above 90%, at seven days after the second dose. This means that protection is achieved 28 days after the initiation of the vaccination, which consists of a two-dose schedule.” However, the results, which are the first from any phase III trial of a covid-19 vaccine, have been shared only by press release and have not yet been published or …
- Conclusions: a vaccine that is 90% effective at preventing
symptomatic cases of covid-19 and with millions of
doses available by the end of the year.
- Background:
- Was the study experimental or non-experimental? The study was experimental as they were working in creating a vaccine for the COVID-19 virus and testing how effective it would be.
- Was the research qualitative or quantitative? This research was quantitative. As it is being measured by quantities and numbers.
- What was the population studied? Nearly 44,000
participants - What sample was used for this study? Individuals whom were already affected by the virus and those who have not. 42% of the trial’s global participants and 30% of US participants have “racially and ethnically diverse backgrounds.” (Mahase, 2020). Gender, age, specific race, or any more information had not been disclosed.
- What was the method of measurement? (10 pts) Participants are selected by those who have not gotten sick and those who have. They are being observed during the first dose, where they will have to wait 28 days for the second does. Which then participants will be observed for 2 years after the second dose is given.
- What was the method of analysis? (10 pts) The method was to get participants who have already been affected and those who have not. They would like to see how the individuals were affected from the first dose to the second.
- What was the conclusion of the study? (10 pts) The conclusion of the study is to prevent the spread of the virus in a safe matter for all ages and already existing health issues such as diabetes, cancer, etc.
- Why is this study useful to you? Explain in detail. (10 pts) I would not say this study was useful in making me feel comfortable with the long term effects of the vaccine. Although, I did successfully completed the two doses, this study gave me a bit feedback in how it all started. I am staying optimistic and hope that all vaccines continue to work and not cause any effects in the long run.
- What would be the next logical step in extending this study? (10 pts) 1. A study of how many cases have since occurred for Covid-19 vaccinated people and unvaccinated people. Per say are vaccinated individuals 100% safe from the vaccine? Are the vaccine not making any difference and still killing many people? 2. A study of how effective each vaccine has been.
One of the things that you did well in this review is that you simplified some of the medical jargon that is prevalent a lot in medical research. This medical jargon can be intimidating to read or understand too many people. In your review, I didn’t find any of the words that I found to be hard to understand.
Since the word usage was simple for a reader to understand, this review did indeed help me understand more of the material. It’s really important to be able to understand this material as well considering the subject. It’s a huge topic right now in our everyday life. This information is vital to have out in an understandable format to allow people to make their decisions on the vaccine.
One question I would have is how the participants were selected for this. It only mentions what the criteria of the participants were. Did these participants just get selected for this study? Were they given an option after being selected? Were they given a survey or questionnaire asking if they would be willing to come back for the checkups required for this research? These are questions that were left unanswered in the article and I think should be mentioned within the review. It’s quite possible I missed where this was answered, but I didn’t see it after reading it twice.
Hello:
Do you think something could be clarified?
The article is informative, and the clarification that it requires concerns qualitative research. It is important to identify the specific qualitative research method used, for instance, providing details on whether the research involved interviews, questionnaires, or recordings. Specifying the specific qualitative research method impacts future research concerning a topic. It also provides a basis upon which findings are represented as valid and credible. Additionally, it is important to state the specific research methods used in the research to assist future research with the most preferred and effective method by participants. The research assumes that interviews were conducted, but it is better to specify the applied qualitative research method.
Did their review help you better understand a topic?
The review was very informative and had all the aspects that ensured that it was easily comprehended. The review provided the participants and families and established a relationship between the participants and the research topic. Additionally, the review provided a personal experience that was very relatable to current experiences with the Covid 19 pandemic.
What did you think of the article in general?
I think the article provides relevant information concerning experiences with the media during the Covid 19 pandemic. During the pandemic, children were more exposed to social media than going to school or even playing outside. Parents hold different views about children being exposed to the media. The review provides their views adequately and seeks to state whether those who agree with their children being exposed to the media outweigh those who disagree with their children using the media.
Do you think they did something particularly well in the review?
The review included both quantitative and qualitative research hence providing enough information on the type of research methods applied in a similar situation or topic. Having participants and the population was a good step to show the validity of the findings. Additionally, incorporating a personal experience created a relationship between the research and current experience.
RIght review:
Do you think something could be clarified?
The review provides the applied quantitative research method and adequately provides information on the research; therefore, it does not require any clarification. The article provides that the research was experimental; it states what was being experimented on, the specific number of analyzed cases, and the participants involved in the study. A conclusion was also provided hence summarizing the findings of the study.
Did their review help you better understand a topic?
Yes, the review was very informative, from the background to the conclusion. The review provided information concerning the study of the Covid vaccine and the effects of the vaccines. The review provides for the population and the specific quantitative research method that was applied in the study. Additionally, the review provided the specific participants required for the study and the effect o the vaccines on them.
What did you think of the article in general?
The article holds relevant provisions on the effect and the effectiveness of the Pfizer and BioNTech vaccines used around the world to vaccinate people against Covid 19. The article informs individuals who would like to be vaccinated that it is 90 percent effective, and their bodies might experience certain effects subject to being given the vaccines. The article ensures that an individual is comfortable with agreeing or disagreeing on whether to take the vaccine. The article meets the requirement of good research as it provides a background, research methods, participants in the research, findings, and a sufficient conclusion.
•Do you think they did something particularly well in the review?
The review summarizes the research and provides all the relevant information pertaining to the study. From the background to the conclusion, it is evident that the most important parts of studying vaccines are adequately addressed. The participants, population, time, research methods, and a sufficient conclusion are provided. Additionally, the review provides the results, which is the purpose of the study. Anyone who reads the review will clearly understand what the article is about, what it involves, and what was found subject to the research.