National Healthcare Quality and Disparities Report
Latest available findings on quality of and access to health care
Data
- Data Infographics
- Data Visualizations
- Data Tools
- Data Innovations
- All-Payer Claims Database
- Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP)
- Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS)
- AHRQ Quality Indicator Tools for Data Analytics
- State Snapshots
- United States Health Information Knowledgebase (USHIK)
- Data Sources Available from AHRQ
Search All Research Studies
AHRQ Research Studies Date
AHRQ Research Studies
Sign up: AHRQ Research Studies Email updates
Research Studies is a compilation of published research articles funded by AHRQ or authored by AHRQ researchers.
Results
1 to 6 of 6 Research Studies DisplayedIstl AC, Ruck JM, Morris CD
Call for improved design and reporting in soft tissue sarcoma studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis of chemotherapy and survival outcomes in resectable STS.
Researchers completed a meta-analysis of chemotherapy in localized STS, assessing OS, PFS, and local and distant recurrence. They found no benefit of chemotherapy over locoregional therapy alone for all-comers or site-specific STS. Recommendations to improve outcome reporting and quality indices are suggested.
AHRQ-funded; HS024736.
Citation: Istl AC, Ruck JM, Morris CD .
Call for improved design and reporting in soft tissue sarcoma studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis of chemotherapy and survival outcomes in resectable STS.
J Surg Oncol 2019 Jun;119(7):824-35. doi: 10.1002/jso.25401..
Keywords: Cancer, Treatments, Evidence-Based Practice, Mortality, Outcomes, Research Methodologies
Millar MM, Kinney AY, Camp NJ
Predictors of response outcomes for research recruitment through a central cancer registry: evidence from 17 recruitment efforts for population-based studies.
The authors conducted multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression to identify case and study characteristics associated with making contact with and obtaining cooperation of Utah cancer cases. They found that characteristics associated with lower odds of contact included Hispanic ethnicity, nonwhite race, and younger age at contact. Years since diagnosis was inversely associated with making contact. Increased odds of cooperation were associated with including a questionnaire, postage stamps, and incentives. They concluded that obtaining high response is challenging, but study features identified in this analysis support better results when recruiting through central cancer registries.
AHRQ-funded; HS019356; HS022640.
Citation: Millar MM, Kinney AY, Camp NJ .
Predictors of response outcomes for research recruitment through a central cancer registry: evidence from 17 recruitment efforts for population-based studies.
Am J Epidemiol 2019 May;188(5):928-39. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwz011..
Keywords: Cancer, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Evidence-Based Practice, Registries, Outcomes, Research Methodologies
Smith SR
AHRQ Author: Smith SR
Preface to the AHRQ supplement.
AHRQ, through its Developing Evidence to Inform Decisions about Effectiveness (DEcIDE) Research Network, sponsored this supplement to present various strategies in the design, analysis, and conduct of health outcomes studies relevant to rare diseases. The purpose of this supplement is to disseminate illustrative examples of research methods that can be applied to understand health outcomes and potentially to stimulate new patient-centered outcomes studies for rare diseases.
AHRQ-authored.
Citation: Smith SR .
Preface to the AHRQ supplement.
J Gen Intern Med 2014 Aug;29 Suppl 3:S712-3. doi: 10.1007/s11606-014-2922-x.
.
.
Keywords: Comparative Effectiveness, Evidence-Based Practice, Outcomes, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Research Methodologies
Garabedian LF, Chu P, Toh S
Potential bias of instrumental variable analyses for observational comparative effectiveness research.
Results of instrumental variable analyses may be biased if the instrument and outcome are related through an unadjusted third variable, an instrument-outcome confounder. The authors review of 187 comparative effectiveness studies using this type of analysis, only 4 considered potential instrument-outcome confounders outside the study data.
AHRQ-funded; 290050016I
Citation: Garabedian LF, Chu P, Toh S .
Potential bias of instrumental variable analyses for observational comparative effectiveness research.
Ann Intern Med. 2014 Jul 15;161(2):131-8. doi: 10.7326/M13-1887..
Keywords: Comparative Effectiveness, Outcomes, Research Methodologies
Darney BG, Caughey AB
Elective induction of labor symposium: nomenclature, research methodological issues, and outcomes.
This article focuses on key method issues in studies of elective induction of labor. The authors first identify methodological concerns with the existing literature and discuss each in return. They then review existing evidence about the relationship between elective induction and cesarean delivery.
AHRQ-funded; HS017582
Citation: Darney BG, Caughey AB .
Elective induction of labor symposium: nomenclature, research methodological issues, and outcomes.
Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Jun;57(2):343-62. doi: 10.1097/GRF.0000000000000029..
Keywords: Research Methodologies, Outcomes, Labor and Delivery, Women
Cappelleri JC, Lundy JJ, Hays RD
Overview of classical test theory and item response theory for the quantitative assessment of items in developing patient-reported outcomes measures.
This article presents an overview of classical test theory and item response theory in the quantitative assessment of items and scales during the content-validity phase of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measure development. The researchers concluded that depending on the particular type of measure and specific circumstances, either approach or both may be useful to help maximize the content validity of a PRO measure.
AHRQ-funded; HS016980
Citation: Cappelleri JC, Lundy JJ, Hays RD .
Overview of classical test theory and item response theory for the quantitative assessment of items in developing patient-reported outcomes measures.
Clin Ther. 2014 May;36(5):648-662. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2014.04.006..
Keywords: Outcomes, Research Methodologies