In this task, you are given a passage which has a question and the context. You have to generate an answer to the question based on the information present in the context.

[EX Q]: Context: Trauma centers are currently benchmarked on mortality outcomes alone. However, pay-for-performance measures may financially penalize centers based on complications. Our objective was to determine whether the results would be similar to the current standard method of mortality-based benchmarking if trauma centers were profiled on complications.', 'We analyzed data from the National Trauma Data Bank from 2007 to 2010. Patients 16 years or older with blunt or penetrating injuries and an Injury Severity Score (ISS) of 9 or higher were included. Risk-adjusted observed-to-expected (O/E) mortality ratios for each center were generated and used to rank each facility as high, average, or low performing. We similarly ranked facilities on O/E morbidity ratios defined as occurrence of any major complication. Concordance between hospital performance rankings was evaluated using a weighted statistic. Correlation between morbidity- and mortality-based O/E ratios was assessed using Pearson coefficients. Sensitivity analyses were performed to mitigate the competing risk of death for the morbidity analyses.', 'A total of 449,743 patients from 248 facilities were analyzed. The unadjusted morbidity and mortality rates were 10.0% and 6.9%, respectively. No correlation was found between morbidity- and mortality-based O/E ratios (r = -0.01). Only 40% of the centers had similar performance rankings for both mortality and morbidity. Of the 31 high performers for mortality, only 11 centers were also high performers for morbidity. A total of 78 centers were ranked as average, and 11 ranked as low performers on both outcomes. Comparison of hospital performance status using mortality and morbidity outcomes demonstrated poor concordance (weighted = 0.03, p = 0.22).\Question: Does benchmarking trauma centers on mortality alone reflect quality of care : implications for pay-for-performance?
[EX A]: Mortality-based external benchmarking does not identify centers with high complication rates. This creates a dichotomy between current trauma center profiling standards and measures used for pay-for-performance. A benchmarking mechanism that reflects all measures of quality is needed.

[EX Q]: Context: Intravenous tissue-type plasminogen activator (tPA) is a proven treatment for acute ischemic stroke, but there has been limited evaluation among patients aged 90 years.', 'We analyzed data from the Get With The Guidelines-Stroke national quality improvement registry from January 2009 to April 2013. Frequency, determinants, and outcomes of tPA use were compared among patients aged 90 and 3 younger age groups (18-64, 65-79, and 80-89 years).', 'Among 35708 patients from 1178 sites who arrived within 2 hours of time last known well and received tPA, 2585 (7.2%) were 90 years. Compared with younger patients, the rate of tPA use among patients without a documented contraindication was lower among patients aged 90 years (67.4% versus 84.1% in 18-89-year olds; P<0.0001). Discharge outcomes among individuals aged 90 years included discharge to home or acute rehabilitation in 31.4%, independent ambulation at discharge in 13.4%, symptomatic hemorrhage in 6.1%, and in-hospital mortality or hospice discharge in 36.4%. On multivariable analysis, good functional outcomes generally occurred less often and mortality more often among patients aged 90 years. The risk of symptomatic hemorrhage was increased compared with patients <65 years but was not significantly different than the risk in 66- to 89-year olds.\Question: Do use and Outcomes of Intravenous Thrombolysis for Acute Ischemic Stroke in Patients 90 Years of Age?
[EX A]: The use of intravenous tPA among those aged 90 years is lower than in younger patients. When fibrinolytic therapy is used, the risk of symptomatic hemorrhage is not higher than in 66- to 89-year olds; however, mortality is higher and functional outcomes are lower.

[EX Q]: Context: It has been suggested that prostate specific antigen has no predictive value for prostate cancer after a first negative biopsy has been performed. We compared the performance operating characteristics of prostate specific antigen for prostate cancer between a first and subsequent prostate biopsy in a group of men with complete verification of cancer status.', 'From the 18,882 participants in the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial we examined men in the placebo group who had only a first biopsy or a first and second prostate biopsy with a prostate specific antigen and digital rectal examination within 1 year before each biopsy. The receiver operating characteristic curve was estimated for prostate specific antigen for detection of prostate cancer on the first biopsy compared to the second, and the C-statistics were compared.', 'Of this group 5,608 men had a first biopsy and 687 of those with a negative first biopsy underwent a second biopsy. The C-statistic was 0.650 (95% CI 0.632, 0.668) for the first biopsy and 0.664 (95% CI 0.607, 0.721) for the second biopsy. The C-statistic for the second biopsy was statistically significantly greater than 0.5 (p <0.001) and overlapped with that from the first biopsy.\Question: Is the performance of prostate specific antigen for predicting prostate cancer maintained after a prior negative prostate biopsy?
[EX A]:
Prostate specific antigen does not lose predictive value for the detection of prostate cancer even after a first biopsy shows no evidence of cancer, and its performance characteristics are only slightly decreased.