The Department of Quantitative Health Sciences has expertise in all aspects of clinical research. From study design to statistical analysis to preparing funding applications, we will help you and your department achieve sound scientific results from your research project in a timely manner. Each year, we co-author hundreds of publications and receive millions of dollars in external funding. We have the knowledge and skills to partner with each Cleveland Clinic Institute.
Cleveland Clinic has its own team of biostatisticians, epidemiologists, outcomes researchers, database developers and programmers in the Department of Quantitative Health Sciences. Our pledge is to be better, faster, and/or less expensive than any research group that operates outside Cleveland Clinic. To find out more about how we can serve you, try our Skill Finder.
Here are just a few areas the department specializes in:
The Department is available to all Cleveland Clinic physicians, researchers, and support staff on a pay-as-you-go or dedicated-FTE fee basis. Do you need help training staff for an upcoming research project? We will teach your residents, fellows, medical students and support team about conducting clinical studies, efficient data collecting methods, and other important research skills.
Read more in our department brochure (PDF).
Performance evaluations of healthcare providers have proliferated in many medical and surgical disciplines in the past decade. There have been numerous studies examining both potential benefits and unintended consequences of these healthcare report cards. Solid organ transplant centers are evaluated on a bi-annual basis by risk adjusted models evaluating graft and patient survival and centers that receive low performance may lose public support and de-certification. In a 2016 study published in the American Journal of Transplantation, we examined changes in management of kidney transplant candidates on the waiting list from 2007-2014 in the United States (n=315,796) associated with whether centers received low performance evaluations (Schold JD et al., Association of Candidate Removals From the Kidney Transplant Waiting List and Center Performance Oversight). Findings indicated significantly higher rates of patients removed from the waiting list (adjusted hazard ratio=1.59 [1.55, 1.63]) as compared to centers without low evaluations. These patients had lower mortality rates following waitlist removal (adjusted hazard ratio=0.90 [0.87, 0.94]) suggesting different criteria for removal based on health status. Cumulatively, the findings suggest marked changes in practice among transplant centers associated with performance oversight that may inadvertently limit access to kidney transplantation for candidates.
The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data is a rich source of second cancer risk information. Compared to existing SEER data tools, recent R package SEERaBomb developments yield higher resolution estimates of second cancer risk dynamics. These developments were used by Radivoyevitch et al. to show that the risks of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndromes peak 1.5 to 2.5 years after 1st cancers, with risks higher after 1st cancers treated with radiation, and particularly high for the AML subtype acute promyelocytic leukemia. In a second paper by Radivoyevitch et al. these developments were used to show that chronic lymphocytic leukemia risks are at background levels or slightly higher after 1st cancers treated with radiation or not, respectively.