Critique/Evaluate a Quantitative Research Study

This study revolved around the comparison of two drugs with their ability to treat chronic depression. The background of the study affirmed that chronic depression stood for a relevant portion of depressive disorders and are linked with serious consequences. As aforementioned the study looked at the acceptability and the efficacy of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) in the cure of chronic depression. In addition to that, the relative usefulness of these two types of antidepressants was looked at in great length.

Evaluation

From an evaluative point of view, it can be said that the methods used to acquire data for the study were very much insightful. The researchers involved, in a bid to realize as big a sample as possible, sourced information from trusted Medicare and Medicaid databases as opposed to working with a single clinic and observing the rate at which patients recovered after uptake of SSRIs and TCAs. The methodology used revolved around sourcing and analyzing databases such as CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. ISI Web of Science, BIOSIS, PsycINFO, and CINAHL were also used. The wisdom that comes with seeking such a large sample in this way is that of time-saving and the sparing use of money. It is no secret that the study would have taken about a year or even a year plus if it was done hands-on.

The primary efficacy outcome revolved around efficacy to treatment but questionable was the fact that primary efficacy outcome was a response to treatment and also the fact that primary acceptance outcome was dropping out of the study. I must say that it was limiting for the researchers only to consider randomized control trials but the results of the study seemed satisfactory. On a much more generalized level, the methodology of the study was top notch and the databases used were peer reviewed but critique may posit that it would have been much better if the researchers noted down the results step by step and dealt with real people on a one-to-one basis so that primary results, through observation, could have been used. Whats more, supposing there were any misrepresentations in the databases that were used, how would the researchers have known? Perhaps it would have been much better if the proponents of the study had primary data to fall back to if their secondary data was put through a lot of questioning.

The study concluded and gave sufficient evidence for the efficacy of both TCAs and SSRIs when it came to the treatment of chronic depression. In addition to that, it backed the acceptability of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors SSRIs in comparison to tricyclic antidepressants TCAs. What comes out as skeptical is the fact that there was no mentioning of whether the chronic depression patients had recurrences of the condition after the suppression and treatment offered by selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and antidepressants.

Conclusion

There existed the pros and cons to this particular study of SSRIs and TCA effectiveness. For instance, since the government databases were used in the sourcing and evaluation of the samples, the samples are very commendable because it shows the credibility of the study; on the other hand, the lack of primary data sources is demeaning to the entirety of the paper because it breeds contempt.