Anzeige
Erschienen in:
17.02.2017 | Author's reply
Reply to the Letter to the Editor of Y. Zhao, et al. concerning “Association between IGF1 gene single nucleotide polymorphism (rs5742612) and adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a meta-analysis” by Ming Guan, Huan Wang et al. Eur Spine J (2016). doi:10.1007/s00586-016-4742-7
Erschienen in: European Spine Journal | Ausgabe 4/2017
Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhaltenExcerpt
First of all, I would like to thank the authors for their thoughtful and critical remarks on our article entitled “Association between IGF1 gene single nucleotide polymorphism (rs5742612) and adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a meta-analysis” [1]. We are very grateful for the kind comments and the opportunity to respond to the Letter to the Editor. Our responses are as follows:
1.
Definitely, the meta-analysis was based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) criteria. And we admit that the flow diagram and the mentioned textbox in the flow diagram were not rigorous enough. Thanks for your reminder.
2.
Our meta-analysis outcomes may not be generalizable as the limited sample sizes and population groups. Further researches in different ethnic and population groups are necessary to provide more evidence and confirm the potential association.
3.
The details of the modified Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) for each included study are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1
Quality assessment of studies included in the meta-analysis on the association of the rs5742612 single nucleotide polymorphism in IGF1 with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis using a modified Newcastle–Ottawa Scale
|
Study
|
Nikolova et al. [3]
|
Moon et al. [4]
|
Yang et al. [5]
|
Yeung et al. [2]
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Selection
|
||||
|
Adequacy of case definition
|
Multiple processes to ascertain case status, including reference to primary record source (a)a
|
Multiple processes to ascertain case status, including reference to primary record source (a)a
|
Multiple processes to ascertain case status, including reference to primary record source (a)a
|
Multiple processes to ascertain case status, including reference to primary record source (a)a
|
|
Representativeness of the cases
|
All cases in defined hospitals and with outcome of the interest over a defined period of time (a)a
|
All cases in a defined hospital and with outcome of the interest over a defined period of time (a)a
|
All cases in a defined hospital and with outcome of the interest over a defined period of time (a)a
|
All cases with outcome of the interest over a defined period of time (a)a
|
|
Selection of controls
|
Hospital controls and community controls; genetic polymorphism of interest not in HWE (b)
|
Hospital controls and community controls; genetic polymorphism of interest in HWE (b)
|
Hospital controls and community controls; genetic polymorphism of interest in HWE (b)
|
No description of source; genetic polymorphism of interest in HWE (d)
|
|
Definition of controls
|
No history of AIS (a)a
|
No history of AIS (a)a
|
No history of AIS (a)a
|
No history of AIS (a)a
|
|
Comparability
|
||||
|
Cases and controls of homogeneous ethnic descent
|
Homogeneous ethnic descent (a)a
|
Homogeneous ethnic descent (a)a
|
Homogeneous ethnic descent (a)a
|
Homogeneous ethnic descent (a)a
|
|
Population stratification
|
No description (c)
|
No description (c)
|
No description (c)
|
No description (c)
|
|
Exposure
|
||||
|
Ascertainment of exposure
|
Not reported (c)
|
Not reported (c)
|
Not reported (c)
|
Not reported (c)
|
|
Same method of ascertainment for cases and controls
|
Yes (a)a
|
Yes (a)a
|
Yes (a)a
|
Yes (a)a
|
|
Genotyping call rate
|
Not reported (b)
|
Not reported (b)
|
Not reported (b)
|
Not reported (b)
|
|
Total
|
n = 5b
|
n = 5b
|
n = 5b
|
n = 5b
|
4.
This meta-analysis adopted a leave-one-out analysis to evaluate the sensitivity of our study and the overall statistical significance did not reverse when any single study including Yueng et al.’s study [2] was removed.
5.
The publication bias test was performed through Begg’s test (P = 0.734) and Egg’s test (P = 0.592) in the overall populations and the results showed no significant publication bias in our meta-analysis.