Background
Methods
Literature search strategy
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Data extraction
Subgroup criteria
Author | Year | Country | Ethnicity | Age group | Cases | Controls | Genotyping method |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
rs4950928 | |||||||
Li [21] | 2015 | China | Asian | Children | 316 | 297 | Mass Array |
James [7] | 2016 | Sweden | Caucasian | Adults | 111 | 57 | TaqMan |
Ober [18] | 2008 | USA | Caucasian | Children | 344 | 294 | TaqMan |
Ober [18] | 2008 | USA | Caucasian | Mixed | 99 | 197 | TaqMan |
Ramphul [20] | 2015 | Mauritius | African | Children | 192 | 189 | TaqMan |
rs10494132 | |||||||
Chatterjee [8] | 2008 | India | Caucasian | Adults | 270 | 292 | EMSAs |
Chatterjee [8] | 2008 | India | Caucasian | Adults | 150 | 101 | EMSAs |
Huang [23] | 2013 | China | Asian | Children | 158 | 198 | Mass Array |
Chen [22] | 2014 | China | Asian | Adults | 150 | 101 | Mass Array |
Shao [24] | 2017 | China | Asian | Children | 68 | 52 | Mass Array |
Statistical analysis
Results
Study characteristics
Study | Cases | Controls | P for HWE | ||||
rs4950928 | GG | GC | CC | GG | GC | CC | |
Li [21] | 13 | 111 | 192 | 9 | 71 | 217 | 0.288 |
James [7] | 8 | 34 | 69 | 3 | 14 | 40 | 0.254 |
Ober [18] | 17 | 100 | 227 | 24 | 120 | 150 | 1.000 |
Ober [18] | 5 | 25 | 69 | 7 | 80 | 111 | 0.103 |
Ramphul [20] | 6 | 64 | 122 | 5 | 63 | 121 | 0.339 |
rs10494132 | TT | TC | CC | TT | TC | CC | |
Chatterjee [8] | 150 | 85 | 30 | 166 | 97 | 24 | 0.075 |
Chatterjee [8] | 91 | 43 | 14 | 55 | 38 | 6 | 0.868 |
Huang [23] | 130 | 26 | 2 | 138 | 50 | 10 | 0.063 |
Chen [22] | 91 | 43 | 16 | 55 | 38 | 8 | 0.691 |
Shao [24] | 30 | 22 | 16 | 23 | 17 | 12 | 0.023 |
Meta-analysis and subgroup analysis
Subgroup | Genetic model | Genotype/Allele | Type of model | Heterogeneity | Test of Association | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
I2
| P
het
| OR | 95% CI | P
meta
| ||||
rs4950928 | ||||||||
Overall | Recessive model | GG vs. GC + CC | F | 0.00% | 0.430 | 0.946 | 0.626–1.428 | 0.791 |
Dominant model | GG + GC vs. CC | R | 86.70% | 0.000 | 0.917 | 0.767–1.097 | 0.342 | |
Codominant model | GC vs. CC | R | 85.80% | 0.000 | 0.915 | 0.759–1.103 | 0.351 | |
Homozygote model | GG vs. CC | F | 39.10% | 0.160 | 0.889 | 0.588–1.346 | 0.579 | |
Allele model | G vs. C | R | 84.90% | 0.000 | 0.933 | 0.802–1.085 | 0.369 | |
Caucasians | Recessive model | GG vs. GC + CC | F | 21.40% | 0.128 | 0.794 | 0.475–1.327 | 0.378 |
Dominant model | GG + GC vs. CC | R | 70.20% | 0.035 | 0.621 | 0.484–0.797 | 0.000 | |
Codominant model | GC vs. CC | R | 65.70% | 0.054 | 0.612 | 0.470–0.796 | 0.000 | |
Homozygote model | GGvs. CC | F | 40.40% | 0.187 | 0.675 | 0.402–1.134 | 0.138 | |
Allele model | G vs. C | R | 68.70% | 0.041 | 0.696 | 0.567–0.856 | 0.001 | |
Children | Recessive model | GG vs. GC + CC | F | 28.00% | 0.249 | 0.844 | 0.529-1.346 | 0.476 |
Dominant model | GG + GC vs. CC | R | 91.90% | 0.000 | 0.955 | 0.782–1.166 | 0.651 | |
Codominant model | GC + CC | R | 90.90% | 0.000 | 0.970 | 0.788-1.196 | 0.777 | |
Homozygote model | GG vs. CC | R | 64.00% | 0.062 | 0.797 | 0.499-1.275 | 0.345 | |
Allele model | G vs. C | R | 91.30% | 0.000 | 0.946 | 0.799–1.120 | 0.522 | |
rs10494132 | ||||||||
Overall | Recessive model | TT vs. TC + CC | F | 35.80% | 0.182 | 1.212 | 0.981–1.497 | 0.075 |
Dominant model | TT + TC vs. CC | F | 21.80% | 0.276 | 0.857 | 0.597–1.230 | 0.403 | |
Codominant model | TC vs. CC | F | 0.00% | 0.455 | 0.748 | 0.504–1.109 | 0.149 | |
Homozygote model | TT vs. CC | F | 24.70% | 0.257 | 0.916 | 0.630–1.331 | 0.646 | |
Allele model | T vs. C | R | 57.90% | 0.050 | 1.094 | 0.924–1.297 | 0.298 | |
Asians | Recessive model | TT vs. TC + CC | F | 29.80% | 0.240 | 1.476 | 1.071–2.032 | 0.017 |
Dominant model | TT + TC vs. CC | F | 48.10% | 0.145 | 1.125 | 0.654–1.933 | 0.671 | |
Codominant model | TC vs. CC | F | 24.60% | 0.266 | 0.926 | 0.507–1.691 | 0.802 | |
Homozygote model | TT vs. CC | F | 48.90% | 0.141 | 1.249 | 0.709-2.199 | 0.441 | |
Allele model | T vs. C | R | 64.00% | 0.062 | 1.326 | 1.024–1.717 | 0.032 | |
Children | Recessive model | TT vs. TC + CC | F | 30.60% | 0.263 | 1.472 | 1.067–2.030 | 0.019 |
Dominant model | TT + TC vs. CC | F | 53.00% | 0.119 | 1.101 | 0.629–1.927 | 0.737 | |
Codominant model | TC vs. CC | F | 34.70% | 0.216 | 0.903 | 0.485–1.681 | 0.748 | |
Homozygote model | TT vs. CC | F | 53.30% | 0.117 | 1.217 | 0.679–2.184 | 0.510 | |
Allele model | T vs. C | R | 64.90% | 0.058 | 1.320 | 1.016–1.713 | 0.037 |
Sensitivity analysis
Publication bias
Subgroup | Genetic model | Genotype/Allele | Begg’s test | Egger’s test | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
z value | P value | t value | P value | |||
rs4950928 | ||||||
Overall | Recessive model | GG vs. GC + CC | 0.000 | 1.000 | 2.450 | 0.092 |
Dominant model | GG + GC vs. CC | 0.490 | 0.624 | 0.180 | 0.866 | |
Codominant model | GCvs.CC | 0.490 | 0.624 | 0.060 | 0.958 | |
Homozygote model | GG vs. CC | 0.980 | 0.327 | 1.880 | 0.157 | |
Allele model | Gvs.C | 0.490 | 0.624 | 0.440 | 0.690 | |
rs10494132 | ||||||
Overall | Recessive model | TTvs. TC + CC | 0.240 | 0.806 | 0.770 | 0.500 |
Dominant model | TT + TCvs. CC | 0.980 | 0.327 | 1.750 | 0.178 | |
Codominant model | TCvs. CC | 0.490 | 0.624 | 1.050 | 0.373 | |
Homozygote model | TT vs. CC | 1.470 | 0.142 | 2.200 | 0.116 | |
Allele model | T vs. C | 0.490 | 0.624 | 1.200 | 0.317 |