Chat with us, powered by LiveChat Developing Part 3 - Analysis of Literature? Analyze Your Research Articles: Compare and Contrast? Directions? Analyze below what is the same among your 3 research articles and what is d | WriteDen

Developing Part 3 – Analysis of Literature? Analyze Your Research Articles: Compare and Contrast? Directions? Analyze below what is the same among your 3 research articles and what is d

Discussion Topic

Part 1 

Complete the introduction paragraph for the literature review: 6 steps 

Part 2

Activity: Developing Part 3 – Analysis of Literature 

Analyze Your Research Articles: Compare and Contrast 


Analyze below what is the same among your 3 research articles and what is different. 

Example for You 

1. What articles have similarities in each section below? 

a. Methodology 

Dall’Ora et al. (2015) and Stimpfel et al. (2012) both used qualitative methods with large sample sizes; 31,627 (Dall’Ora et al., 2015) and 22,275 (Stimpfel et al., 2012) 

  1. b. Findings 

Both studies (Dall’Ora et al., 2015; Stimpfel et al., 2012) found a strong association between longer shifts and job dissatisfaction and the negative effects on patient satisfaction. 

  1. c. Recommendations 

Both studies (Dall’Ora et al., 2015; Stimpfel et al., 2012) suggest policy makers to use the findings to reconsider their current approach of increasing hours due to nurse shortage because of the long-term negative effects on nurses and patients. 

1. What articles have similarities in each section below? 

  1. a. Methodology 
  2. b. Findings 
  3. c. Recommendations 

2. What articles have differences in each section below? 

  1. d. Methodology 
  2. e. Findings 
  3. f. Recommendations 

The Effects of Anti-Cancer Drugs on Cancer Outcomes


Cancer is a major cause of morbidity and mortality globally, accounting for 9.5 million deaths as of 2018. Thyroid Cancer is one of the most frequent endocrine malignancies, contributing to 3.4 percent of all cancers in the United States each year Indini et al.(2022). While there has been significant progress in the development of new cancer treatments and the increase in the use of anticancer drugs over the past few years, the side effects of these drugs can be severe and sometimes life-threatening. However, there is still a lack of evidence regarding their efficacy and safety. As a result, it is critical to assess the benefits and risks of these medications before hospitals use them to treat cancer patients. This literature review aims to assess the benefits and risks of anticancer medicines in patients with advanced cancer. This literature study will aid in a deeper understanding of these medications and their prospective usage in cancer care.

Compare and Contrast

1. What articles have similarities in each section below? 


a.    Methodology 

Silaghi et al. (2022) and Bachelard et al. (2021) conducted systematic reviews and meta-analyses to investigate the risks and advantages of anticancer medications in patients with advanced cancer, as well as potential causes of resistance to such treatments. Both investigations looked for clinical trials in English written between the years 2000 through 2021 and followed the PRISMA criteria. Indini et al. (2022) employed a different technique conducting a systematic review of the function of the mTOR and NAD pathways in malignancy treatment, progression, and resistance. This study searched Google Scholar, Scopus, PubMed, and Embase for English language papers published between 2000 through 2021.

b.    Findings 

Anticancer medication usage was related to a considerable risk of death in advanced cancer patients, according to Silaghi et al. (2022) and Bachelard et al. (2021). However, the authors discovered that these medications were linked to a considerable increase in the likelihood of surviving for at least a year. Furthermore, the researchers discovered that using these medications was related to a considerable increase in the likelihood of living for more than five years. Their findings differed significantly from those of Indini et al. (2022), who discovered that the mTOR and NAD paths are responsible for drug resistance in malignant cells. Furthermore, the authors discovered that these pathways might be possible targets for future treatment methods.

c.    Recommendations 

Targeted therapy is recommended by Bachelard et al. (2021), Indini et al. (2022), and Silaghi et al. (2022) as potential therapeutic choices for individuals with advanced cancer who have completed standard-of-care treatment. They also emphasize the necessity of knowing medication resistance mechanisms to design more effective targeted therapeutics. Furthermore, they underline the need for trustworthy biomarkers in guiding treatment decisions. Finally, they examine the prospects of immunotherapeutic and combinatorial treatment as resistance-busting techniques for targeted therapeutics.


2. What articles have differences in each section below? 


a.    Methodology 

There are major discrepancies in technique between studies by Bachelard et al.(2021) and Indini et al. (2022). Bachelard et al.(2021) assessed the benefits and dangers of anticancer medicines in advanced cancer patients using a meta-analysis and systematic review. Indini et al.(2022) conducted a literature review to find the most recent guidelines, clinical and preclinical research, and novel perspectives in treating advanced, malignant RAIR-DTC. Both Bachelard (2021) and Indini et al. (2022) employed various databases and search phrases. Such databases included PubMed, Google Scholar, and Embase. Bachelard et al. (2021) explored clinical trials testing

Anti-cancer medications in adult patients with metastatic tumors, whereas Indini et al. (2022) looked for publications about DTC therapy and innovative therapeutic approaches. It is also worth mentioning that Bachelard et al. (2021) included a data meta-analysis, but Indini et al. (2022) did not; this is the most likely because Bachelard (2021) was concerned with assessing the effectiveness of anticancer medications. In contrast, Indini et al. (2022) were concerned with locating the most recent recommendations and research on the therapy of DTC.


b.    Findings 

Indini et al. (2022) had different results than Silaghi et al. (2022). While Indini et al. (2022) discovered that the mTOR and NAD paths play a role in drug resistance development in malignant cells, Silaghi et al. (2022) discovered that targeted therapy is a viable therapeutic option for thyroid cancer.


c.    Recommendations

When discussing therapy choices with advanced cancer patients, Bachelard et al. (2021) propose that adverse effects documented in clinical trials should be considered.

As prospective options for overcoming resistance, Indini et al. (2022) propose combinatorial treatment, redifferentiation therapy, targeting alternative pathways and immunotherapy. Silaghi et al. (2022) propose targeted therapy for patients with distinguishable thyroid carcinoma who have developed resistanceto radioiodine treatment. They advocate salvage treatment for patients who fail to respond to first-line Tyrosine kinase inhibitors therapy.


Indini, A., Fiorilla, I., Ponzone, L., Calautti, E., & Audrito, V. (2022). NAD/NAMPT and mTOR pathways in melanoma: Drivers of drug resistance and prospective therapeutic targets. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 23(17), 9985.

Moreau Bachelard, C., Coquan, E., du Rusquec, P., Paoletti, X., & Le Tourneau, C. (2021). Risks and benefits of anticancer drugs in advanced cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. EClinicalMedicine, 40, 101130.

Silaghi, H., Lozovanu, V., Georgescu, C. E., Pop, C., Nasui, B. A., Cătoi, A. F., & Silaghi, C. A. (2022). State of the art in the current management and future directions of targeted therapy for differentiated thyroid cancer. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 23(7), 3470.




Globally, lung cancer is the most common type of cancer that contributes to most deaths. Sharma et al. (2018) reported that the disease led death of more than 1.7 million in 2015, particularly due to cigarette smoking. According to Villanti et al. (2013), use of tobacco leads in terms of contribution to lung cancer, with more than 70 percent of men and about 55 percent of women dying of lung cancer as a result of smoking. A news article by Grady (2015), points out that more than 42 million Americans smoke, which includes 21% of men and 15% of women. The article reveals that the rate of death among smokers is two or three times higher than non-smokers, and they are highly likely to die more than ten years before those who have never smoked. These statistics clearly indicate that smoking behavior significantly differs based on sex. In particular, men smoke more pipes and cigars compared to women, which explains why men are potentially predisposed to a greater risk of developing cancer due to smoking. Substantial physiological differences based on gender also lead to sex differences when it comes to the impact of smoking, especially for women. In particular, women have a different airway behavior and smaller lung size compared to men, which increases their vulnerability to lung cancer even when they smoke less than men do. Sharma et al. (2018) also noted that the rate of lung cancer mortality due to smoking is higher among men than women. Therefore, it is inevitable that cigarette-smoking related lung cancer is extremely common and a serious killer to the victims. The population that is most vulnerable includes men and women who smoke, including those exposed to second-hand smoking.


Medical research has been unable to establish a sure way that may be utilized in preventing and mitigating lung cancer. However, there are numerous ways that each individual may need to practice as a way of lowering the risk of developing lung cancer. For individuals who have never smoked, there is a need to ensure that they avoid starting, which helps in ensuring that they keep their lungs healthy, which lowers the risk of developing lung cancer (Villanti et al., 2013). For smokers, it is important to stop smoking. Smokers may need to consult a healthcare professional for stop-smoking aids and strategies that they leverage to quit smoking. Secondhand smoking is also a major cause of lung cancer. Therefore, individuals who work or live with a smoker should urge him/her to smoke outside or quit. It is essential to avoid areas where people usually smoke such as restaurants and bars. More importantly, non-smokers should avoid carcinogens at their places of work, which includes avoidance of exposure to toxic chemicals. Above all, people who seek to keep lung cancer at bay should ensure that they exercise regularly and eat a diet full of vegetables and fruits.


Lack of exercise, being overweight, and smoking are critical risk factors that increases the susceptibility of an individual to lung cancer. For those who have already developed smoking-related lung cancer, it is recommended that they quit smoking the soonest possible (Villanti et al., 2013). A study conducted by Sharma et al. (2018) revealed if a patient with lung cancer continues to smoke during radiotherapy or chemotherapy, their rate of survival is severely compromised compared to those who quit smoking. This is because continued smoking after an individual is diagnosed with lung cancer is associated with such effects as reduced cancer treatment efficacy, impaired healing, increased risk for cancer recurrence, diminished general quality of life, impaired healing, and decreased survival. According to O’Keeffe et al. (2018), after lung cancer is diagnosed early, quitting smoking can go a long way in helping victims survive longer as it serves to prevent the disease becoming worse or delays return of the cancer. In addition to quit smoking, smoking-related cancer patients should consider such treatment alternatives as targeted therapy, radiation therapy, chemotherapy, surgery, or a combination of the alternatives. Surgery helps in the removal of the cancer tissue while chemotherapy leverages specific medicines aimed at killing or shrinking the cancer. Radiation therapy utilizes high-energy rays in killing the cancer, with targeted therapy involving use of drugs to hamper the spread or growth of cancer cells.


Grady, D. (2015). Smoking’s toll on health is even worse than previously thought, a study finds. The New York Times.

O’Keeffe, L. M., Taylor, G., Huxley, R. R., Mitchell, P., Woodward, M., & Peters, S. A. (2018). Smoking as a risk factor for lung cancer in women and men: a systematic review and meta-analysis.  BMJ open8(10), e021611.

Sharma, A., Bansal-Travers, M., Celestino, P., Fine, J., Reid, M. E., Hyland, A., & O’Connor, R. (2018). Using a smoking cessation quitline to promote lung cancer screening.  American journal of health behavior42(6), 85-100.

Villanti, A. C., Jiang, Y., Abrams, D. B., & Pyenson, B. S. (2013). A cost-utility analysis of lung cancer screening and the additional benefits of incorporating smoking cessation interventions.  PloS one8(8), e71379.



The Effects of Smoking on Lung Cancer Rates among Adults in New York

Pulla Rao Uppatala

MSc in Computer Science, King Graduate School

KG 604: Graduate Research & Critical Analysis

Dr. Aditi Puri

14 Nov 2022

New Research Article 1

Who: The assessment of cost-utility analysis of lung cancer screening and the paybacks on integrating smoking cessation interventions was performed by Villanti et al.

Why: This study aimed to assess whether LDCT screening for lung cancer among commercially insured individuals between 50 and 64 years at high risk for this disorder is turning out to be cost-effective. The authors also strived to quantify the extra payback of integrating smoking cessation solutions within lung cancer screening programs.

When: The authors analyzed their study in 2012 assuming that all existing smokers and half of the prior smoker population aged between 50 and 64 years were eligible for screening, with the minimum being set at least thirty packs –years of smoking.

Where: The researchers used data from National Health Interview Survey on cigarette smoking conditions for individuals between 45 and 64 years who were making 30% of active smokers across the United States at the time. The cancer treatment costs were acquired from New York's taxpayer database, which provided information including physician, hospital, drug and ancillary costs eligible for insurer reimbursement.

How: The authors used qualitative research methods to build up on the prior simulation model to determine the utility cost of yearly, recurring LDCT screenings for the last 15 years within an assumed high-risk population of 18 million adults aged between 50 and 64 years. It specifically involved those who have consumed over 30 packs within their smoking history. The authors' findings indicate that the recurring yearly lung cancer screening within the high-risk population has been effective. Providing smoking cessation strategies within the yearly screening program has increased the cost-effectiveness of the disorder by between 40 and 45%.

New Research Article 2

Who: The study on Using a smoking cessation quitline to promote lung cancer screening was performed by Sharma et al.

Why: The goal of their study was to compare two alternatives to dispense information concerning lung cancer screening. This included a quitline, a mailed brochure pinned with in-depth messaging facilitated by a quitline coach. Therefore, the authors focused on assessing the strategy that will be effective and have a significant impact on the participants searching for information about lung cancer screening. The authors thus hypothesized that the individuals who received the brochure would report having spoken to their insurance company or physician and compare it to those who only received the brochure and made no contact.

When: The authors recruited their research participants in 2018

Where: The target population came from residents residing in New York State but outside Niagara and Erie counties.

How: The authors performed a randomized trial involving New York State Smokers Quitline respondents to determine the impact of disseminating a brochure comprising information on benefits, risks and costs related to lung cancer screening compared to a brochure supplemented with phone-based and in-depth messaging. The research findings identified that the educational brochure was an effective and affordable strategy for dispensing information regarding lung cancer screening.


Sharma, A., Bansal-Travers, M., Celestino, P., Fine, J., Reid, M. E., Hyland, A., & O’Connor, R. (2018). Using a smoking cessation quitline to promote lung cancer screening.  American journal of health behavior42(6), 85-100.

Villanti, A. C., Jiang, Y., Abrams, D. B., & Pyenson, B. S. (2013). A cost-utility analysis of lung cancer screening and the additional benefits of incorporating smoking cessation interventions.  PloS one8(8), e71379.


Our website has a team of professional writers who can help you write any of your homework. They will write your papers from scratch. We also have a team of editors just to make sure all papers are of 

Step 1

To make an Order you only need to click ORDER NOW and we will direct you to our Order Page at WriteDen. Then fill Our Order Form with all your assignment instructions. Select your deadline and pay for your paper. You will get it few hours before your set deadline.
 Deadline range from 6 hours to 30 days.

Step 2

Once done with writing your paper we will upload it to your account on our website and also forward a copy to your email.

Step 3
Upon receiving your paper, review it and if any changes are needed contact us immediately. We offer unlimited revisions at no extra cost.

Is it Safe to use our services?
We never resell papers on this site. Meaning after your purchase you will get an original copy of your assignment and you have all the rights to use the paper.


Our price ranges from $8-$14 per page. If you are short of Budget, contact our Live Support for a Discount Code. All new clients are eligible for 20% off in their first Order. Our payment method is safe and secure.

Please note we do not have prewritten answers. We need some time to prepare a perfect essay for you.