DSS screenshot showing the “rules” and DSS engine logic based on 2007 Indian Hypertension II guidelines for drug management.

<p>DSS screenshot showing the “rules” and DSS engine logic based on 2007 Indian Hypertension II guidelines for drug management.</p

DSS screenshot showing staging of hypertension, risk category, and tailor made recommendations for drug treatment, pharmacological indication and contraindications, lifestyle support and follow up advice.

<p>DSS screenshot showing staging of hypertension, risk category, and tailor made recommendations for drug treatment, pharmacological indication and contraindications, lifestyle support and follow up advice.</p

DSS screenshot showing “rules” and DSS engine logic based on 2007 Indian Hypertension II guidelines for risk staging.

<p>DSS screenshot showing “rules” and DSS engine logic based on 2007 Indian Hypertension II guidelines for risk staging.</p

Phases of DSS development and validation.

<p>Phases of DSS development and validation.</p

Associations of baseline t-PA antigen, D-dimer and VWF with coronary heart disease risk (Reykjavik Study).

<p>Odds ratios (95% CI) for coronary heart disease are shown by fifths of baseline t-PA antigen, D-dimer and VWF, plotted against the geometric mean level in each category on a log-doubling scale. *Adjusted for age, sex, period of recruitment, smoking status, body mass index, systolic blood pressure, history of diabetes, total cholesterol and log_e triglycerides.</p

Baseline characteristics of coronary heart disease cases and matched controls in the Reykjavik Study, and correlations with t-PA antigen, D-dimer and VWF.

<p>Abbreviations: ESR, erythrocyte sedimentation rate; IQR, inter-quartile range.</p>*<p>Means (SDs) of log_e transformed values in cases and controls were 0.2 (0.5) and 0.0 (0.4) for triglycerides; 4.4 (1.6) and 4.0 (1.7) for lipoprotein (a); 0.8 (0.8) and 0.7 (0.8) for interleukin 6; 0.5 (1.1) and 0.2 (1.1) for C-reactive protein; 2.0 (1.0) and 1.9 (1.0) for erythrocyte sedimentation rate; 2.6 (0.5) and 2.5 (0.5) for t-PA antigen; 4.8 (1.0) and 4.8 (1.0) for D-dimer; and 4.7 (0.4) and 4.6 (0.4) for VWF.</p>†<p>Percentage differences and 95% CIs were calculated per 1 SD higher level or compared to the reference category of variables shown in the left column (adjusted for age, sex and period of recruitment).</p

Head-to-head comparison of associations of various baseline variables with coronary heart disease risk (Reykjavik Study).

<p>*Values were log_e transformed for analysis. †Adjusted for age, sex, period of recruitment, smoking status, body mass index, systolic blood pressure, history of diabetes, total cholesterol and log_e triglycerides.</p

Study flow diagram of the updated meta-analyses.

<p>The figure was designed based on the 2009 PRISMA flow diagram template (available from <a href="http://www.prisma-statement.org/statement.htm" target="_blank">http://www.prisma-statement.org/statement.htm</a>).</p

Association of baseline levels of t-PA antigen, D-dimer and VWF with coronary heart disease in the Reykjavik Study (1925 cases, 3616 controls).

*<p>Smoking status, body mass index, systolic blood pressure and any history of diabetes mellitus at baseline.</p>†<p>Total cholesterol and log_e triglycerides.</p><p>When analyses were restricted to participants with complete information on C-reactive protein (1906 cases, 3573 controls), the odds ratios (95% CI) per 1 SD higher value of t-PA antigen were 1.26 (1.18, 1.33) when adjusting for age, sex and period of recruitment, 1.15 (1.07, 1.22) when additionally adjusting for non-lipid risk factors, 1.07 (0.99, 1.14) when additionally adjusting for lipid risk factors and 1.04 (0.97, 1.11) when additionally adjusting for C-reactive protein. Corresponding odds ratios were 1.01 (0.95, 1.07), 1.04 (0.98, 1.11), 1.07 (1.00, 1.14) and 1.05 (0.99, 1.12) for D-dimer and 1.12 (1.05, 1.18), 1.09 (1.02, 1.15), 1.09 (1.03, 1.16) and 1.06 (1.00, 1.13) for VWF.</p

Meta-analyses of reported associations of t-PA antigen, D-dimer and VWF with coronary heart disease risk in prospective population-based studies.

<p>Study acronyms are explained in the legend of <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0055175#pone-0055175-t003" target="_blank"><b>Table 3</b></a>. Summary estimates were calculated using random effects models. *Degree of adjustment:+minimally adjusted (typically adjusted for age and sex only);++plus adjustment for at least one non-lipid marker;+++plus adjustment for at least one lipid marker;++++plus adjustment for at least one inflammatory marker. Where studies reported relative risks with more than one level of statistical adjustment, the most adjusted estimate was used (least adjusted estimates are reported in <b><a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0055175#pone.0055175.s008" target="_blank">Figure S8</a></b>).</p