Help using Base SAS procedures

SAS import text file (carriage return delimited)

Reply
Frequent Learner
Posts: 1

SAS import text file (carriage return delimited)

Hello, 

 

I am a rookie in SAS programming and I have been trying to import a text file into SAS. Basically I'd like each record to be an observation and each 3-letter item to be the variable. I have try data infile but it obviously needs more manipulation. Anyone could kindly offer some advice? Thank you.

 

Record #1
%%%%
TTL: Economic outcomes associated with the use of risperidone in a naturalistic group practice setting
AUT: Nightengale B S, Garrett L, Waugh S, Lawrence B J, Andrus J
XSO: American Journal of Managed Care
XYR: 1998
VOL: 4(3)
PAG: 360-366
XPT: Journal article
XST: This is a critical abstract of an economic evaluation that meets the criteria for inclusion on NHS EED. Each abstract contains a brief summary of the methods, the results and conclusions followed by a detailed critical assessment on the reliability of the study and the conclusions drawn.
XHT: Risperidone versus haloperidol in a naturalistic setting.
XTI: Treatment.
XEC: Cost-effectiveness analysis.
XPA: Patients over the age of 18 years suffering from either schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or major depression with psychotic features.
XSG: The practice setting was primary care. The economic analysis was carried out by Applied Health Outcomes, Inc, Oklahoma City, USA.
XDD: Both prospective and retrospective effectiveness and resource data were obtained between June 1994 and November 1996. No prices were stated.
XDR: Discounting was not applied due to the short period of analysis. Direct costs included medication, inpatient, day hospital utilisation, and clinician costs (source: local charge rates/billing data). No price year was stated.
XMB: Economic benefits were measured in terms of resource utilisation comparisons and resulting cost comparisons. The perspective used was that of the payer.
XSD: This was a cohort study. A matched control group was used within a longitudinal design.
XSS: Effectiveness data around risperidone and haloperidol consuming subjects was derived from a single pilot project.
OI: The authors made some reference to findings from other studies in comparison with their own results. The authors did not appear to have presented their results selectively. The authors' conclusions reflect the scope of the analysis. The authors reported that the sample sizes used within the analysis were another limitation on the conclusions drawn.
SCO: The selection of haloperidol and risperidone as comparators within the study was justified and, as a reflection of current practice, was appropriate for the study question.
VB: Appropriate statistical analyses were carried out, although the within-subject variances cannot be assumed to be equal in the regression analysis as the number of observations per patient were not the same. The study sample was representative of the study population and patient groups appeared to be comparable at analysis, although only age, gender and initial GAF scores were shown. Inadequate health benefits were used in the economic analysis with costs replacing them. The study was of cost-consequences design.
VC: All categories of cost relevant to the perspective adopted were included in the analysis. Limitations of the cost analysis included the points that costs and quantities were not reported separately, charges were used to proxy costs, no statistical analysis of quantities was performed, and no price year was given. These factors limit the generalisability of the results.
XAE: The analysis of the clinical study (intention-to-treat or completers) was not stated. Primary health outcomes used were length of follow-up, monthly hospital visits, length of stay, monthly physician visits, monthly day hospital visits, day hospital length of stay and total daily dose. No confidence intervals were reported.
XCL: Patients treated with risperidone had significantly fewer hospitalisations and inpatient days than their haloperidol controls. However, patients in the risperidone cohort used more outpatient services.
XDI: Mental disorders.
XFU: Supported by an unrestricted grant from Janssen Research Foundation, Titusville, NJ, USA.
XLI: Costing was undertaken retrospectively on the effectiveness study sample.
XRE: Primary outcome results were as follows:length of follow-up, risperidone 17.2 months versus haloperidol 16.0 months, (p=0.6085);monthly hospital visits, risperidone 0.023 versus haloperidol 0.084, (p=0.0040);length of stay, risperidone 19.8 days versus haloperidol 16.64 days, (p=0.5827);monthly physician visits, risperidone 0.441 versus haloperidol 0.244, (p=0.0005);monthly day hospital visits, risperidone 0.03 versus haloperidol 0.003;day hospital length of stay, risperidone 14.31 days versus haloperidol 42 days);and total daily dose, risperidone 4.88 mg versus haloperidol 9.61mg.
XSM: No power calculations were reported. Patients were over the age of 18 years and suffering from either schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or major depression with psychotic features and were monitored for at least 6 consecutive months prior to the start of the study (with obtainable medical records). Subjects must have initially scored 50 or below on the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) scale. Further, at some time during the final 3 months of the study time frame, patients must have registered a GAF score. No exclusions were reported. There were 28 subjects in the risperidone group (average age 50.0 years, 67.9% female) and 24 in the haloperidol group (average age 54.3 years, 58.3% female). Mean initial GAF scores were 41.4 (risperidone) and 38.3 (haloperidol).
XCO: Not included.
XCU: US dollars ($).
XSA: Confidence intervals and P values were completed for estimated resource costs.
XSY: Not stated.
XEB: Economic benefits were measured in terms of resource utilisation comparisons and resulting cost comparisons. These were based on the effectiveness results reported above.
XCR: The adjusted mean monthly cost totals were $1,636.11 for risperidone and $1,759.45 for haloperidol.
XCB: Not performed.
XAU: The significant reductions in hospital costs in the risperidone cohort offset higher medication and physician costs. However, total monthly costs for each group were similar.
CO1: United States
XIM: Although the study conclusions reflect the growing findings around risperidone and haloperidol treatment, methodological issues within the study have produced limitations on the findings therein.
KWO: Antipsychotic Agents /economics /therapeutic use; Cohort Studies; Group Practice /economics; Humans; Mental Disorders /drug therapy; Outcome Assessment (Health Care) /economics; Pilot Projects; Risperidone /economics /therapeutic use; United States; Utilization Review
XAC: 21998000562
XID: 31 Oct 2000
XLA: English
XPR: 10178498
DBN: NHS EED
RUR: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/CRDWeb/ShowRecord.asp?ID=21998000562

Record #2
%%%%
TTL: Multiple outcome assessment in a study of the cost-effectiveness of clozapine in the treatment of refractory schizophrenia
AUT: Rosenheck R, Cramer J, Xu W, Grabowski J, Douyon R, Thomas J, Henderson W, Charney D
XSO: Health Services Research
XYR: 1998
VOL: 33(5)
PAG: 1237-1267
XPT: Journal article
XST: This is a critical abstract of an economic evaluation that meets the criteria for inclusion on NHS EED. Each abstract contains a brief summary of the methods, the results and conclusions followed by a detailed critical assessment on the reliability of the study and the conclusions drawn.
XHT: Clozapine use in the treatment of refractory schizophrenia.
XTI: Treatment.
XEC: Cost-effectiveness analysis.
XPA: Patients with refractory schizophrenia with at least 30-364 days of hospitalisation during the previous year.
XSG: The practice settings were Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centres in the USA.
XDD: Effectiveness and resource data were collected over a 12 month period between 1996 and 1998 (approximately). No price year was stated.
XDR: Discounting was not undertaken due to the short period of analysis (less than 1 year). Direct costs from a societal perspective included inpatient stays, medical/surgical costs, residential care costs, outpatient and treatment costs. No price year was stated.
XMB: QALYs were adapted from the primary health outcome findings, according to worst health-good health units (analogous to QALYs).
XSD: This was a double-blind, multi-centre randomised controlled trial. The duration of follow-up was 12 months. No loss to follow-up was recorded, although 82% of all assessments through all time points were completed.
XSS: Clozapine effectiveness estimates in the treatment of refractory schizophrenia were derived from a single study.
OI: The authors made some reference to comparing their findings to those in other papers, although the issue of generalisability to other settings was not addressed. The authors do not appear to have reported their results selectively. The authors reported that the cost intervals found were uncertain and also that using summed weighted z-scores may have resulted in some double-counting.
SCO: The rationale for the choice of comparator was clear.
VB: The measure of benefit was a utility score appropriate for the patient sample. Conventional QALYs (which focus on physical pain and motor functioning) were not appropriate for patients with psychotic illnesses. It was not clear whether the study sample was representative of the study population due to lack of information provided around patient characteristics, although the authors state that, at baseline, the two groups were comparable. Appropriate statistical analyses were undertaken on the study findings.
VC: All relevant categories of cost appeared to have been included in the analysis. Costs were not reported separately from quantities. Resource figures were taken from the VA Cost Distribution Report and computerised workload data. Non-VA health care costs were obtained from another study (Office of the Inspector General, 1992). No sensitivity analysis around costs was conducted and the price year was not given.
XAE: The analysis was based on an intention-to-treat basis as well as a crossover exclusion basis. The primary health outcomes used was a Composite Health Index for Schizophrenia (CHIS), developed from combining the weighted results ofSmiley Sad1) the Structured Clinical Interview for Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) for schizophrenia;(2) social relationships;(3) role functioning;(4) general daily activity and recreation;(5) family relationships (using a section of the Quality of Life Interview; and(6) medication side effects (using standard scales).The CHIS evaluated a person's total time in good health through weighted (patient/provider) and non-weighted outcomes. The unweighted clozapine-haloperidol cumulative gain in CHIS was 49% (0-6 months) and 37% (0-12 months).
XCL: Clozapine offers clinical benefits in the measure of symptoms and side-effects, and is also more effective than haloperidol on the one-year CHIS.
XDI: Mental Disorders.
XFU: Supported by the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research Service.
XLI: Cost estimates were derived from the study sample. It was not clear whether this information was obtained retrospectively or prospectively.
XOP: (1) Rosenheck R A, Cramer J, Xu W, Thomas J, Henderson W, Frisman L K, Fye C, Charney D for the Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group on Clozapine in Refractory Schizophrenia. A comparison of Clozapine and Haloperidol in the treatment of hospitalized patients with refractory schizophrenia. The New England Journal of Medicine 1997;337(12):809-13.(2) Office of the Inspector General. Comparison of costs and outcomes of matched pairs of VAMCs and their university affiliates. Washington, DC: Office of the Inspector General,1992.
XRE: The effectiveness results were as follows:The patient-weighted clozapine-haloperidol cumulative gain in CHIS was 50% (0-6 months) and 44% (0-12 months).The provider-weighted clozapine-haloperidol cumulative gain in CHIS was 49% (0-6 months) and 41% (0-12 months).Clozapine was significantly more effective than haloperidol in the measure of symptoms (p=0.02) and side-effects (p<0.0001), with nonsignificant trends in the positive direction on community role functioning (p=0.06), family relationships (p=0.23), social relationships (p=0.30), and daily activities (p=0.20).Clozapine was also more effective than haloperidol on the one-year CHIS (p<0.0001).
XSM: 423 patient were enrolled in the study (clozapine 205, haloperidol 218). No other patient characteristics were reported within this paper. No power calculations were reported. Details around entry criteria and pharmacological and psychosocial treatment have been presented elsewhere (Rosenheck, Cramer, Xu, et al. 1997). The 2 study groups were shown to be comparable at baseline.
XCO: Indirect costs from a societal perspective included lost productivity, benefits, criminal justice and family burden costs. No price year was stated.
XCU: US dollars ($).
XSA: Costs were statistically analysed (t-test).
XSY: Not reported.
XEB: Intention-to-treat QALY gains (clozapine-haloperidol) at 0-6 months were 0.008, and over 0-12 months were 0.021. Crossover exclusion QALY gains (clozapine-haloperidol) at 0-6 months were 0.008, and over 0-12 months were 0.027.
XCR: the total societal costs were $58,151 for clozapine and $60,884 for haloperidol (t=0.83; p=0.409, non-significant).
XCB: The cost-effectiveness ratio results ranged from -$431,585 to $177,352 for clozapine over haloperidol. The change of direction is related to the uncertainty around the cost results and the small changes in benefit.
XAU: Clozapine is more cost-effective than standard treatment for use with patients suffering from refractory schizophrenia. Although the magnitude of its effect is small, there is considerable uncertainty around the cost results.
CO1: United States
XIM: The study suggests that using clozapine is more cost-effective than haloperidol in the treatment of schizophrenia. However, further analysis is required in order to substantiate the cost findings therein as there is a very large confidence interval (which changes direction) which may or may not substantiate such claims.
KWO: Clozapine /adverse effects /economics /therapeutic use; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Double-Blind Method; Drug Costs; Haloperidol /adverse effects /economics /therapeutic use; Hospital Costs; Hospitals, Veterans; Humans; Long-Term Care /economics; Outcome Assessment (Health Care) /statistics & numerical data; Patient Admission /economics; Prospective Studies; Psychiatric Status Rating Scales; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Schizophrenia /diagnosis /drug therapy /economics
XAC: 21999008057
XID: 31 Oct 2000
XLA: English
XPR: 9865219
DBN: NHS EED
RUR: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/CRDWeb/ShowRecord.asp?ID=21999008057

 

 

Record #1
%%%%
TTL: Economic outcomes associated with the use of risperidone in a naturalistic group practice setting
AUT: Nightengale B S, Garrett L, Waugh S, Lawrence B J, Andrus J
XSO: American Journal of Managed Care
XYR: 1998
VOL: 4(3)
PAG: 360-366
XPT: Journal article
XST: This is a critical abstract of an economic evaluation that meets the criteria for inclusion on NHS EED. Each abstract contains a brief summary of the methods, the results and conclusions followed by a detailed critical assessment on the reliability of the study and the conclusions drawn.
XHT: Risperidone versus haloperidol in a naturalistic setting.
XTI: Treatment.
XEC: Cost-effectiveness analysis.
XPA: Patients over the age of 18 years suffering from either schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or major depression with psychotic features.
XSG: The practice setting was primary care. The economic analysis was carried out by Applied Health Outcomes, Inc, Oklahoma City, USA.
XDD: Both prospective and retrospective effectiveness and resource data were obtained between June 1994 and November 1996. No prices were stated.
XDR: Discounting was not applied due to the short period of analysis. Direct costs included medication, inpatient, day hospital utilisation, and clinician costs (source: local charge rates/billing data). No price year was stated.
XMB: Economic benefits were measured in terms of resource utilisation comparisons and resulting cost comparisons. The perspective used was that of the payer.
XSD: This was a cohort study. A matched control group was used within a longitudinal design.
XSS: Effectiveness data around risperidone and haloperidol consuming subjects was derived from a single pilot project.
OI: The authors made some reference to findings from other studies in comparison with their own results. The authors did not appear to have presented their results selectively. The authors' conclusions reflect the scope of the analysis. The authors reported that the sample sizes used within the analysis were another limitation on the conclusions drawn.
SCO: The selection of haloperidol and risperidone as comparators within the study was justified and, as a reflection of current practice, was appropriate for the study question.
VB: Appropriate statistical analyses were carried out, although the within-subject variances cannot be assumed to be equal in the regression analysis as the number of observations per patient were not the same. The study sample was representative of the study population and patient groups appeared to be comparable at analysis, although only age, gender and initial GAF scores were shown. Inadequate health benefits were used in the economic analysis with costs replacing them. The study was of cost-consequences design.
VC: All categories of cost relevant to the perspective adopted were included in the analysis. Limitations of the cost analysis included the points that costs and quantities were not reported separately, charges were used to proxy costs, no statistical analysis of quantities was performed, and no price year was given. These factors limit the generalisability of the results.
XAE: The analysis of the clinical study (intention-to-treat or completers) was not stated. Primary health outcomes used were length of follow-up, monthly hospital visits, length of stay, monthly physician visits, monthly day hospital visits, day hospital length of stay and total daily dose. No confidence intervals were reported.
XCL: Patients treated with risperidone had significantly fewer hospitalisations and inpatient days than their haloperidol controls. However, patients in the risperidone cohort used more outpatient services.
XDI: Mental disorders.
XFU: Supported by an unrestricted grant from Janssen Research Foundation, Titusville, NJ, USA.
XLI: Costing was undertaken retrospectively on the effectiveness study sample.
XRE: Primary outcome results were as follows:length of follow-up, risperidone 17.2 months versus haloperidol 16.0 months, (p=0.6085);monthly hospital visits, risperidone 0.023 versus haloperidol 0.084, (p=0.0040);length of stay, risperidone 19.8 days versus haloperidol 16.64 days, (p=0.5827);monthly physician visits, risperidone 0.441 versus haloperidol 0.244, (p=0.0005);monthly day hospital visits, risperidone 0.03 versus haloperidol 0.003;day hospital length of stay, risperidone 14.31 days versus haloperidol 42 days);and total daily dose, risperidone 4.88 mg versus haloperidol 9.61mg.
XSM: No power calculations were reported. Patients were over the age of 18 years and suffering from either schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or major depression with psychotic features and were monitored for at least 6 consecutive months prior to the start of the study (with obtainable medical records). Subjects must have initially scored 50 or below on the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) scale. Further, at some time during the final 3 months of the study time frame, patients must have registered a GAF score. No exclusions were reported. There were 28 subjects in the risperidone group (average age 50.0 years, 67.9% female) and 24 in the haloperidol group (average age 54.3 years, 58.3% female). Mean initial GAF scores were 41.4 (risperidone) and 38.3 (haloperidol).
XCO: Not included.
XCU: US dollars ($).
XSA: Confidence intervals and P values were completed for estimated resource costs.
XSY: Not stated.
XEB: Economic benefits were measured in terms of resource utilisation comparisons and resulting cost comparisons. These were based on the effectiveness results reported above.
XCR: The adjusted mean monthly cost totals were $1,636.11 for risperidone and $1,759.45 for haloperidol.
XCB: Not performed.
XAU: The significant reductions in hospital costs in the risperidone cohort offset higher medication and physician costs. However, total monthly costs for each group were similar.
CO1: United States
XIM: Although the study conclusions reflect the growing findings around risperidone and haloperidol treatment, methodological issues within the study have produced limitations on the findings therein.
KWO: Antipsychotic Agents /economics /therapeutic use; Cohort Studies; Group Practice /economics; Humans; Mental Disorders /drug therapy; Outcome Assessment (Health Care) /economics; Pilot Projects; Risperidone /economics /therapeutic use; United States; Utilization Review
XAC: 21998000562
XID: 31 Oct 2000
XLA: English
XPR: 10178498
DBN: NHS EED
RUR: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/CRDWeb/ShowRecord.asp?ID=21998000562

Record #2
%%%%
TTL: Multiple outcome assessment in a study of the cost-effectiveness of clozapine in the treatment of refractory schizophrenia
AUT: Rosenheck R, Cramer J, Xu W, Grabowski J, Douyon R, Thomas J, Henderson W, Charney D
XSO: Health Services Research
XYR: 1998
VOL: 33(5)
PAG: 1237-1267
XPT: Journal article
XST: This is a critical abstract of an economic evaluation that meets the criteria for inclusion on NHS EED. Each abstract contains a brief summary of the methods, the results and conclusions followed by a detailed critical assessment on the reliability of the study and the conclusions drawn.
XHT: Clozapine use in the treatment of refractory schizophrenia.
XTI: Treatment.
XEC: Cost-effectiveness analysis.
XPA: Patients with refractory schizophrenia with at least 30-364 days of hospitalisation during the previous year.
XSG: The practice settings were Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centres in the USA.
XDD: Effectiveness and resource data were collected over a 12 month period between 1996 and 1998 (approximately). No price year was stated.
XDR: Discounting was not undertaken due to the short period of analysis (less than 1 year). Direct costs from a societal perspective included inpatient stays, medical/surgical costs, residential care costs, outpatient and treatment costs. No price year was stated.
XMB: QALYs were adapted from the primary health outcome findings, according to worst health-good health units (analogous to QALYs).
XSD: This was a double-blind, multi-centre randomised controlled trial. The duration of follow-up was 12 months. No loss to follow-up was recorded, although 82% of all assessments through all time points were completed.
XSS: Clozapine effectiveness estimates in the treatment of refractory schizophrenia were derived from a single study.
OI: The authors made some reference to comparing their findings to those in other papers, although the issue of generalisability to other settings was not addressed. The authors do not appear to have reported their results selectively. The authors reported that the cost intervals found were uncertain and also that using summed weighted z-scores may have resulted in some double-counting.
SCO: The rationale for the choice of comparator was clear.
VB: The measure of benefit was a utility score appropriate for the patient sample. Conventional QALYs (which focus on physical pain and motor functioning) were not appropriate for patients with psychotic illnesses. It was not clear whether the study sample was representative of the study population due to lack of information provided around patient characteristics, although the authors state that, at baseline, the two groups were comparable. Appropriate statistical analyses were undertaken on the study findings.
VC: All relevant categories of cost appeared to have been included in the analysis. Costs were not reported separately from quantities. Resource figures were taken from the VA Cost Distribution Report and computerised workload data. Non-VA health care costs were obtained from another study (Office of the Inspector General, 1992). No sensitivity analysis around costs was conducted and the price year was not given.
XAE: The analysis was based on an intention-to-treat basis as well as a crossover exclusion basis. The primary health outcomes used was a Composite Health Index for Schizophrenia (CHIS), developed from combining the weighted results ofSmiley Sad1) the Structured Clinical Interview for Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) for schizophrenia;(2) social relationships;(3) role functioning;(4) general daily activity and recreation;(5) family relationships (using a section of the Quality of Life Interview; and(6) medication side effects (using standard scales).The CHIS evaluated a person's total time in good health through weighted (patient/provider) and non-weighted outcomes. The unweighted clozapine-haloperidol cumulative gain in CHIS was 49% (0-6 months) and 37% (0-12 months).
XCL: Clozapine offers clinical benefits in the measure of symptoms and side-effects, and is also more effective than haloperidol on the one-year CHIS.
XDI: Mental Disorders.
XFU: Supported by the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research Service.
XLI: Cost estimates were derived from the study sample. It was not clear whether this information was obtained retrospectively or prospectively.
XOP: (1) Rosenheck R A, Cramer J, Xu W, Thomas J, Henderson W, Frisman L K, Fye C, Charney D for the Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group on Clozapine in Refractory Schizophrenia. A comparison of Clozapine and Haloperidol in the treatment of hospitalized patients with refractory schizophrenia. The New England Journal of Medicine 1997;337(12):809-13.(2) Office of the Inspector General. Comparison of costs and outcomes of matched pairs of VAMCs and their university affiliates. Washington, DC: Office of the Inspector General,1992.
XRE: The effectiveness results were as follows:The patient-weighted clozapine-haloperidol cumulative gain in CHIS was 50% (0-6 months) and 44% (0-12 months).The provider-weighted clozapine-haloperidol cumulative gain in CHIS was 49% (0-6 months) and 41% (0-12 months).Clozapine was significantly more effective than haloperidol in the measure of symptoms (p=0.02) and side-effects (p<0.0001), with nonsignificant trends in the positive direction on community role functioning (p=0.06), family relationships (p=0.23), social relationships (p=0.30), and daily activities (p=0.20).Clozapine was also more effective than haloperidol on the one-year CHIS (p<0.0001).
XSM: 423 patient were enrolled in the study (clozapine 205, haloperidol 218). No other patient characteristics were reported within this paper. No power calculations were reported. Details around entry criteria and pharmacological and psychosocial treatment have been presented elsewhere (Rosenheck, Cramer, Xu, et al. 1997). The 2 study groups were shown to be comparable at baseline.
XCO: Indirect costs from a societal perspective included lost productivity, benefits, criminal justice and family burden costs. No price year was stated.
XCU: US dollars ($).
XSA: Costs were statistically analysed (t-test).
XSY: Not reported.
XEB: Intention-to-treat QALY gains (clozapine-haloperidol) at 0-6 months were 0.008, and over 0-12 months were 0.021. Crossover exclusion QALY gains (clozapine-haloperidol) at 0-6 months were 0.008, and over 0-12 months were 0.027.
XCR: the total societal costs were $58,151 for clozapine and $60,884 for haloperidol (t=0.83; p=0.409, non-significant).
XCB: The cost-effectiveness ratio results ranged from -$431,585 to $177,352 for clozapine over haloperidol. The change of direction is related to the uncertainty around the cost results and the small changes in benefit.
XAU: Clozapine is more cost-effective than standard treatment for use with patients suffering from refractory schizophrenia. Although the magnitude of its effect is small, there is considerable uncertainty around the cost results.
CO1: United States
XIM: The study suggests that using clozapine is more cost-effective than haloperidol in the treatment of schizophrenia. However, further analysis is required in order to substantiate the cost findings therein as there is a very large confidence interval (which changes direction) which may or may not substantiate such claims.
KWO: Clozapine /adverse effects /economics /therapeutic use; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Double-Blind Method; Drug Costs; Haloperidol /adverse effects /economics /therapeutic use; Hospital Costs; Hospitals, Veterans; Humans; Long-Term Care /economics; Outcome Assessment (Health Care) /statistics & numerical data; Patient Admission /economics; Prospective Studies; Psychiatric Status Rating Scales; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Schizophrenia /diagnosis /drug therapy /economics
XAC: 21999008057
XID: 31 Oct 2000
XLA: English
XPR: 9865219
DBN: NHS EED
RUR: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/CRDWeb/ShowRecord.asp?ID=21999008057

 

Trusted Advisor
Posts: 1,931

Re: SAS import text file (carriage return delimited)

[ Edited ]

I have try data infile but it obviously needs more manipulation.

 

You haven't told us what isn't working. You haven't shown us your code. You haven't shown us your SASLOG. Without these, there's no way we can help you.

Super User
Super User
Posts: 7,977

Re: SAS import text file (carriage return delimited)

I completely agree that we don't have enough information here.  At a guess I would add, read infile, if record then set record variable as that and retain it, other wise read first 3 chars to one variable and the rest to another, then transpose up e.g:

data inter;
  length record 8 v $10 res $2000;
  retain record;
  infile "abc.txt";
  input;
  if index(_infile_,"Record")>0 then record=input(scan(_infile_,2,":"),best.);
  else do;
    v=substr(_infile_,1,3);
    res=scan(_infile_,2,":");
  end;
run;

/* Assumes data is sorted!! */
proc transpose data=inter out=want;
  by record;
  var res;
  id v;
  idlabel v;
run;
Ask a Question
Discussion stats
  • 2 replies
  • 149 views
  • 0 likes
  • 3 in conversation