There are many different areas of the medical field that people rant and rave about in terms of success or failure. However, it is also this same kind of enthusiasm that can, at times, cast a pallor over the fact that some do not always have the necessary quantitative data to support success or failure rates when compared to the qualitative reactions from patients. One are in particular has hit the mainstream train of thought in terms of likely success and positive returns recently – Regenerative Medicine. Through a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the data surrounding on area of this field, that of different techniques in comparison during knee injections to hold off total knee replacement, it will be shown that the field, while controversial, holds promise with both data types.
In order to understand why these kinds of data are important for the study of this field and the subsequent determination of effectiveness, it is first necessary to understand the differences in the two kinds of data. All information can be classified as data of one kind or another but for the stance of validity on a particular field it is important that they be placed into datasets to be analyzed and compared against one another in order to determine validity. Every field of study, whether it be in the arts or the sciences, uses data of one kind or another and any of them can be subdivided into qualitative or quantitative data types. Quantitative data is the one that is most straight forward to many people because it is numerical in nature. Since quantitative data focuses on numbers, values, and comparisons between variables, it is most often used when conducting surveys, comparing scales and results, etc. Math and science tend to rely heavily on quantitative data to find base line determinations on a particular subject. However, it does, at times, lack some of the finesse that qualitative data holds in terms of relating to a particular subject.
Just as quantitative focuses on numbers, qualitative focuses on the lack thereof. Qualitative data is the kind of information that can be gleaned from in depth survey answers which can be expository in nature but also from individual accounts given by subjects in a trial. For example, while we might find that 50 out of 70 saw positive results from a treatment, a statistic that would be quantitative in nature, researchers do not know the variations that each subject in the study experienced. By asking probing questions and getting details, qualitative data is created. It is useful in fields in the sciences and the medical field in particular as this is the data that allows patients to give specific informaiton about what did or did not work and how they feel. Patients all react differently and while the doctors and nurses can see the overall pros and cons of a procedure in terms of time, other factors such as pain and other effects from a treatment can often be described in greater detail which begs the use of qualitative data. Each is useful in its own way.
Now that we have defined the differences in qualitative and quantitative data, the subject of regenerative medicine can be more adequately evaluated. One might ask the question of what is regenerative medicine and receive several answers as there are different sub-fields so it is important to define the issue as definition of a problem allows analysis. For this case, regenerative medicine is the practice of using techniques which can rebuild and help the body to regenerate damaged areas. In particular, the cases of knee injections in an attempt to alleviate problems that would lead to total knee replacement include hyaluronic acid, platelet rich plasma (PRP), and Stem Cell therapy. The issue of total knee replacement in comparison to these kinds of procedures has received greater coverage in the media recently due to the increasing numbers of professionals and celebrities that have started using regenerative medicine techniques to maintain their bodies. While the subject at first seems like a no-brainer, after all a replacement is often the only viable course for many people who have cartiledge degradation on a large scale, the conflicting results on the efficacy of these kinds of procedures makes researchers continue to study these practices.
Leipsic 