In this comparative essay, the two articles under analysis are (I), ‘A case-control study on cigarette, alcohol and coffee consumption preceding Parkinson’s disease’, was published in September 2003 by the ProQuest Central Italy and (II), ‘Parkinson’s disease risks associated with cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption and caffeine intake’. The second article was published in 2002 by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in the United States of America.
In the first article, ‘A case-control study on cigarette, alcohol and coffee consumption preceding Parkinson’s disease’, the research conducted revolves around the effects of alcohol drinking, cigarette smoking and consumption of coffee in respect to either the reduction or increment on the PD risks, while in the research article (II), ‘Parkinson’s disease risks associated with cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption and caffeine intake’, the research conducted is concerned with determining the level of effects that cigarette, alcohol, tea and cola have on either increasing or reducing PD risks.
In the case study (I), the participants were derived from subjects who were affected by the idiopathic PD and had also been diagnosed from a Mini-Mental State Examination. These participants were selected randomly within the same municipality residence. Participants totaled to 150 Parkinson’s disease patients. In case study (II), the participants were drawn from western Washington State. These participants totaled to 210 people-enrollees at the Group Health Cooperative health maintenance organization (Ragonese, Saleemi, Morgante, Aridon, Epifanio, Buffa, Scoppa and Savettieri, 2003, p. 3-7).
There is a significant difference in the amount of results obtained from the research. According to Ragonese, Saleemi, Morgante, Aridon, Epifanio, Buffa, Scoppa and Savettieri, (2003), the following results were found: out of the 150 patients who smoke cigarettes (ever vs. never smokers OR= 0.65, 95 % CI= 0.41-1.05,p=0.8), alcohol, drinking (ever vs. never OR= 0.61, 95 % CI = 0.39-0.97, P= 0.0037) and Coffee consumption depicted (ever vs. never OR = 0.16, 95 % CI 0.05-0.46, p=0.0001) and PD. The aforementioned attributes remained significantly higher even after adjustment of other covariate depicting: OR Alcohol consumption (ever vs. never) 0.62 (95 % CI = 0.43-0.89, p=0.009) for coffee drinking was adjusted to (ever vs. never) 0.19(95 % CI = 0.07-0.52, p= 0.001). In the article (II), the figures are laid out as follows: out of the total 210 participants analyzed, smokers (ever vs. never, OR = 0.3,95 %, CI: 0.1-0.7. OR= 0.6, 95 % CI: 0.4-0.9 respectively). For coffee consumption, there were discovered associations. Notwithstanding, the minimal risks for PD were detected when the participants started consuming a total of 2 cups or more/day. These resulted in the following: (OR= 0.4,95 5 CI: 0.2, 0.9) and two Cola drinks par day reflected (OR = 0.6,96 % CI: 0.3-1.4). According to this difference in the results obtained the overall impact of the finding is in one way or another affected since the (II) article finds out that coffee is not the only reducer of PD risks. Tea and cola are also significant beverages whose consumption per day increases the protective capability of the patients suffering from Parkinson’s disease.
A notable difference between the two research studies rests with the manner in which the participants for the study were selected. In the case study (I), the participants were randomly selected within a Municipality jurisdiction. It should also be fair to postulate that a control ratio of 1:1 was used in the effort to cement the findings of the research study. These participants were affected by both idiopathic PD as well as Mini-Mental State Examination greater to 24. In the case study (II), the participants were sourced from an enrollee program: ‘Group Health Cooperative health maintenance organization’. The control ratio for the study is significantly large, 1:2.
Another difference arises out of the fact that the education attainment for both studies varies and the ethnicity of both groups are distinctively different. In case study (I), the participants were selected from different ethnical background while for research case study (II) most of the participants were sourced from Non-Hispanic Caucasian communities. However, in the latter case study education attainment was leveled since majority of this group managed a college qualification.
