READ ME File For Additional Data'

Dataset DOI: 10.5258/SOTON/D0732

ReadMe Author: Ian Galea, University of Southampton

This dataset supports the publication:
AUTHORS: Ben Gaastra, Dianxu Ren, Sheila Alexander, Ellen R. Bennett, Dawn M. Bielawski, Spiros L. Blackburn, Mark K. Borsody, Sylvain Dore, James Galea, Patrick Garland, Tian He, Koji Iihara, Yoichiro Kawamura, Jenna L. Leclerc, James F. Meschia, Michael A. Pizzi, Rafael J Tamargo, Wuyang Yang, Paul A. Nyquist, Diederik O. Bulters, Ian Galea
TITLE: Haptoglobin genotype and aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage: individual patient data analysis
JOURNAL: Neurology
PAPER DOI: not known yet

This dataset contains:

This is the Additional Data as submitted as a PDF file.

Data supporting main manuscript: "Haptoglobin genotype and aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage: individual patient data analysis"

The text/tables/figures are as follows:

Supplemental Methods. Data definitions.
Supplemental Methods. Sliding dichotomy methodology.
Table e-1. Covariate data availability.
Table e-2. Studies excluded from IPLD analysis.
Table e-3. Results of the two stage IPLD analysis as applied to the covariates age, Fisher grade, WFNS, treatment and hypertension. 
Table e-4. Summary of results of the sliding dichotomy and ordinal outcome analysis, adjusted for covariates, for the primary outcome.
Table e-5. Summary of results of the one stage IPLD analysis, adjusted for covariates, for all primary and secondary outcomes.
Table e-6. Summary of results for all primary and secondary outcomes including unpublished studies only (for primary and secondary outcomes, for the primary comparison HP2-2 vs. HP2-1 and HP1-1).
Table e-7. A de-identifying list linking study IDs with publications.
Figure e-1. Forest plots for the primary (two stage) analysis, for the primary outcome, for the secondary comparisons.
Figure e-2. Forest plots for the primary (two stage) analysis, for the secondary outcome DCI, for the secondary comparisons. 
Figure e-3. Forest plots for the primary (two stage) analysis, for the secondary outcome radiological infarction, for the secondary comparisons. 
Figure e-4. Forest plots for the primary (two stage) analysis, for the secondary outcome angiographic vasospasm, for the secondary comparisons.
Figure e-5. Forest plots for the primary (two stage) analysis, for the secondary outcome TCD evidence of vasospasm, for the secondary comparisons. 
Figure e-6. Forest plot for sensitivity analysis, excluding studies not in HWE (for the primary outcome, for the primary comparison HP2-2 vs. HP2-1 and HP1-1).
Figure e-7. Forest plot for sensitivity analysis, excluding studies not in HWE (for the secondary outcomes, for the primary comparison HP2-2 vs. HP2-1 and HP1-1).
Figure e-8. Forest plot for sensitivity analysis including additional covariates (diabetes and aneurysm location) when available (for the primary outcome, for the primary comparison HP2-2 vs. HP2-1 and HP1-1).
Figure e-9. Forest plots for sensitivity analysis including additional covariates (diabetes and aneurysm location) when available (for the secondary outcomes, for the primary comparison HP2-2 vs. HP2-1 and HP1-1).
Figure e-10. Forest plots for sensitivity analysis including studies which did not have all the essential covariates (for the secondary outcomes, for the primary comparison HP2-2 vs. HP2-1 and HP1-1).
Figure e-11. Forest plot for sensitivity analysis only including covariates significant in univariate analysis (for the primary outcome, for the primary comparison HP2-2 vs. HP2-1 and HP1-1).
Figure e-12. Funnel plots and Egger regression results. Primary outcome: HP2-2 vs. HP2-1 and HP1-1.
Figure e-13. Funnel plots and Egger regression results. Primary outcome: HP2-2 vs. HP1-1.
Figure e-14. Funnel plots and Egger regression results. Primary outcome: HP2-1 vs. HP1-1.
Figure e-15. Funnel plots and Egger regression results. Primary outcome: HP2-2 vs. HP2-1.
Figure e-16. Funnel plots and Egger regression results. Primary outcome: HP2-2 and HP2-1 vs. HP1-1.
Figure e-17. Funnel plots and Egger regression results. Secondary outcome (DCI): HP2-2 vs. HP2-1 and HP1-1.
Figure e-18. Funnel plots and Egger regression results. Secondary outcome (DCI): HP2-2 vs. HP1-1.
Figure e-19. Funnel plots and Egger regression results. Secondary outcome (DCI): HP2-1 vs. HP1-1.
Figure e-20. Funnel plots and Egger regression results. Secondary outcome (DCI): HP2-2 vs. HP2-1.
Figure e-21. Funnel plots and Egger regression results. Secondary outcome (DCI): HP2-2 and HP2-1 vs. HP1-1.
Figure e-22. Funnel plots and Egger regression results. Secondary outcome (radiological infarction): HP2-2 vs. HP2-1 and HP1-1.
Figure e-23. Funnel plots and Egger regression results. Secondary outcome (radiological infarction): HP2-2 vs. HP1-1.
Figure e-24. Funnel plots and Egger regression results. Secondary outcome (radiological infarction): HP2-1 vs. HP1-1.
Figure e-25. Funnel plots and Egger regression results. Secondary outcome (radiological infarction): HP2-2 vs. HP2-1.
Figure e-26. Funnel plots and Egger regression results. Secondary outcome (radiological infarction): HP2-2 and HP2-1 vs. HP1-1.
Figure e-27. Funnel plots and Egger regression results. Secondary outcome (angiographic vasospasm): HP2-2 vs. HP2-1 and HP1-1.
Figure e-28. Funnel plots and Egger regression results. Secondary outcome (angiographic vasospasm): HP2-2 vs. HP1-1.
Figure e-29. Funnel plots and Egger regression results. Secondary outcome (angiographic vasospasm): HP2-1 vs. HP1-1.
Figure e-30. Funnel plots and Egger regression results. Secondary outcome (angiographic vasospasm): HP2-2 vs. HP2-1.
Figure e-31. Funnel plots and Egger regression results. Secondary outcome (angiographic vasospasm): HP2-2 and HP2-1 vs. HP1-1.
Figure e-32. Funnel plots and Egger regression results. Secondary outcome (TCD evidence of vasospasm): HP2-2 vs. HP2-1 and HP1-1.
Figure e-33. Funnel plots and Egger regression results. Secondary outcome (TCD evidence of vasospasm): HP2-2 vs. HP1-1.
Figure e-34. Funnel plots and Egger regression results. Secondary outcome (TCD evidence of vasospasm): HP2-1 vs. HP1-1.
Figure e-35. Funnel plots and Egger regression results. Secondary outcome (TCD evidence of vasospasm): HP2-2 vs. HP2-1.
Figure e-36. Funnel plots and Egger regression results. Secondary outcome (TCD evidence of vasospasm): HP2-2 and HP2-1 vs. HP1-1.

Date of data collection: 2016-2018

Information about geographic location of data collection: University of Southampton, U.K.

Related projects: Developing haptoglobin as a novel intracranial therapeutic.

Date that the file was created: Jnauary 2019