Introduction
Materials and methods
Search strategy
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Data extraction
Statistical analysis
Results
Search results and study characteristics
First author | Year | City | Language | Genotyping methods | Source of control | Cases | Controls | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CC | CT | TT | CC | CT | TT | ||||||
Wu | 2012 | Yunnan | English | PCR-RFLP | HB | 32 | 30 | 13 | 37 | 32 | 6 |
Gao | 2009 | Nanjing | English | PCR-RFLP | PB | 217 | 327 | 125 | 257 | 329 | 96 |
Chou | 2006 | Taiwan | English | PCR-RFLP | HB | 73 | 51 | 18 | 132 | 120 | 33 |
Shrubsole | 2004 | Shanghai | English | PCR-RFLP | PB | 374 | 555 | 183 | 387 | 577 | 196 |
Inoue | 2008 | Singaporea
| English | PCR-RFLP | PB | 239 | 120 | 21 | 393 | 226 | 43 |
Yu | 2007 | Taiwan | English | PCR-RFLP | PB | 56 | 44 | 9 | 225 | 170 | 25 |
Lin | 2004 | Taiwan | English | PCR-RFLP | PB | 43 | 38 | 7 | 173 | 145 | 24 |
Wu | 2010 | Heilongjiang | Chinese | PCR-RFLP | HB | 16 | 35 | 29 | 32 | 35 | 13 |
Yuan | 2009 | Heilongjiang | Chinese | PCR-RFLP | PB | 16 | 35 | 29 | 32 | 35 | 13 |
Hua | 2011 | Yunnan | Chinese | PCR-RFLP | PB | 65 | 21 | 9 | 52 | 27 | 11 |
Kan | 2007 | Yunnan | Chinese | PCR-RFLP | PB | 74 | 29 | 22 | 65 | 29 | 9 |
Li | 2009 | Guangdong | Chinese | PCR-RFLP | PB | 38 | 17 | 10 | 90 | 50 | 3 |
Qi | 2004 | Beijing | Chinese | PCR-RFLP | PB | 42 | 104 | 71 | 59 | 105 | 54 |
First author | Year | City | Language | Genotyping methods | Source of control | Cases | Controls | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AA | AC | CC | AA | AC | CC | ||||||
Wu | 2012 | Yunnan | English | PCR-RFLP | HB | 37 | 32 | 6 | 42 | 28 | 5 |
Gao | 2009 | Nanjing | English | PCR-RFLP | PB | 478 | 181 | 10 | 465 | 205 | 12 |
Chou | 2006 | Taiwan | English | PCR-RFLP | HB | 104 | 30 | 8 | 172 | 95 | 18 |
Shrubsole | 2004 | Shanghai | English | PCR-RFLP | PB | 768 | 311 | 42 | 824 | 344 | 40 |
Inoue | 2008 | Singaporea
| English | PCR-RFLP | PB | 225 | 139 | 16 | 387 | 234 | 41 |
Hua | 2011 | Yunnan | Chinese | PCR-RFLP | PB | 50 | 42 | 3 | 55 | 32 | 3 |
Kan | 2007 | Yunnan | Chinese | PCR-RFLP | PB | 70 | 41 | 14 | 61 | 32 | 8 |
Lin | 2010 | Guangdong | Chinese | PCR-RFLP | PB | 45 | 14 | 6 | 98 | 35 | 10 |
Qi | 2004 | Beijing | Chinese | PCR-RFLP | PB | 155 | 58 | 4 | 144 | 71 | 3 |
Meta-analysis results
Comparison | Test of association | Mode | Test of heterogeneity | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
OR | 95 % CI |
P
|
P
|
I
2 (%) | ||
T vs. C | 1.12 | 1.02–1.23 | 0.015 | R | 0 | 69.0 |
TT vs. CC | 1.35 | 1.10–1.67 | 0.005 | R | 0.001 | 64.5 |
TC vs. CC | 1.01 | 0.96–1.06 | 0.659 | F | 0.275 | 16.7 |
TT vs. TC/CC | 1.37 | 1.11–1.70 | 0.004 | R | 0.003 | 59.3 |
TT/TC vs. CC | 1.06 | 0.99–1.13 | 0.087 | R | 0.024 | 48.9 |
Comparison | Test of association | Mode | Test of heterogeneity | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
OR | 95 % CI |
P
|
P
|
I
2 (%) | ||
C vs. A | 0.96 | 0.89–1.03 | 0.268 | F | 0.303 | 15.6 |
CC vs. AA | 0.98 | 0.77–1.26 | 0.899 | F | 0.857 | 0 |
AC vs. AA | 0.95 | 0.88–1.02 | 0.174 | F | 0.200 | 27.4 |
CC vs. AC/AA | 1.00 | 0.78–1.28 | 0.996 | F | 0.892 | 0 |
CC/AC vs. AA | 0.96 | 0.89–1.02 | 0.196 | F | 0.211 | 26.2 |