English 325 assignment

Errors in Research
Levonorgestrel/Ethinyl Estradiol (Lybrel) for Continuous Contraception
Lisa McCarthy, PharmD and Harvinder Brare, BScPharm
I’m still attempting to obtain an actual research document of a real study focusing on Lybrel; most documents are private and so I have only found reviews to analyze.
Error 32: The paper states what Lybrel is, what it’s composed of, and how it works; but it really doesn’t share the purpose of the study. In the end it says that there’s little data published about Lybrel at this specific time and therefore you’re left to wonder why they are doing studies that haven’t had sufficient data or why they are selling the product already.
Error33: This paper doesn’t distinguish between ‘explanatory’ and ‘pragmatic’ studies. It appears the studies that were done to understand the drug were conducted normally. Women went on the drug and reported what effects they exhibited while they continued their normal lives; there was no closed lab or keeping the patients under control. This is an assumption however because they never stated the type of study.
Error 37: The report doesn’t describe if there was blind group or if any biases occurred through patients or researchers reported data. Side effects weren’t covered because this type of birth control either is similar to other brands and they feel isn’t worth covering or the side effects are long term and they haven’t begun doing that type of research.
Error39: I feel that this paper doesn’t account for all the data, patients, or observations. This paper was written by two people in the pharmacy field who want to (assuming) sell more drugs. A lot of information seems to be missing and it appears that Lybrel is the best pill to come out yet; no negatives apparently shown.
Error 40: This is a big error I noticed; when it comes to testing a drug like birth control, there has to be dropouts due to the fact people get pregnant, want to get pregnant, have complications, etc. This review doesn’t share any aspect of this and now I realize that even though this source came from Pub Med, I probably won’t be using it unless I prove the statistics to be viable from other research.