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 3 of 3 Research Studies DisplayedMcGinn T, Cohen S, Khan S
The high cost of low value care.
The main focus of this study was bridging the "evidence gap" between frontline decision-making in health care and the actual evidence, with the hope of reducing unnecessary diagnostic testing and treatments. From their work in pulmonary embolism (PE) and over ordering of computed tomography pulmonary angiography, the investigators integrated the highly validated Wells' criteria into the electronic health record at two of their major academic tertiary hospitals.
AHRQ-funded; HS022061.
Citation: McGinn T, Cohen S, Khan S .
The high cost of low value care.
Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc 2019;130:60-70..
Keywords: Healthcare Costs, Evidence-Based Practice, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Decision Making, Comparative Effectiveness
Skrivankova V, Heagerty PJ
Single index methods for evaluation of marker-guided treatment rules based on multivariate marker panels.
Answering the scientific challenge to identify and validate the factors that can reliably be used to target treatment and to quantify the expected treatment benefit as a function of candidate markers, the authors of this article propose to focus on a smooth, non-parametric evaluation of a canonical single-index score that estimates the expected treatment benefit associated with patient characteristics. Their methods decouple the model used to generate the treatment benefit score from the methods adopted in order to evaluate the performance of the resulting single-index score. They also demonstrate that the canonical single-index treatment benefit score can be used for selecting subsets of patients with enriched expected treatment response.
AHRQ-funded; HS019222.
Citation: Skrivankova V, Heagerty PJ .
Single index methods for evaluation of marker-guided treatment rules based on multivariate marker panels.
Biometrics 2018 Jun;74(2):663-72. doi: 10.1111/biom.12752..
Keywords: Comparative Effectiveness, Decision Making, Outcomes, Treatments
Semenkovich TR, Panni RZ, Hudson JL
Comparative effectiveness of upfront esophagectomy versus induction chemoradiation in clinical stage T2N0 esophageal cancer: a decision analysis.
This study examined comparative effectiveness and survival rates for upfront esophagectomy versus induction chemoradiation in patients with clinical stage T2N20 esophageal cancer. A decision analysis model was created for the two treatment strategies. Results showed comparable median survival rates for both strategies. The optimal treatment strategy depended on the accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound staging.
AHRQ-funded; HS022330.
Citation: Semenkovich TR, Panni RZ, Hudson JL .
Comparative effectiveness of upfront esophagectomy versus induction chemoradiation in clinical stage T2N0 esophageal cancer: a decision analysis.
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2018 May;155(5):2221-30.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2018.01.006..
Keywords: Treatments, Cancer, Surgery, Comparative Effectiveness, Decision Making, Evidence-Based Practice, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Outcomes, Medication