4.5 Review

The association between rs1800872 polymorphism in interleukin-10 and risk of cervical cancer A meta-analysis

期刊

MEDICINE
卷 100, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000023892

关键词

meta-analysis; Interleukin-10; polymorphism; rs1800872; cervical cancer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The meta-analysis reveals a significant negative association between rs1800872 polymorphism in interleukin-10 and risk of cervical cancer, indicating a protective effect of the AC/AA + AC variant in the development of cervical cancer.
Background: In recent years, several reports have tried to prove this connection between rs1800872 polymorphism in interleukin-10 and cervical cancer among different populations, but the results are debatable. Thus, we collected all the published literature and conducted an integrated meta-analysis, which provided better evidence-based medicine for the relationship between rs1800872 polymorphism in interleukin-10 and risk of cervical cancer. Methods: We systematically performed our search on PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, WanFang database, and CNKI for all papers related to this research, published up to August 1, 2020. Summary odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were calculated in allelic, homozygous, heterozygous, dominant, and recessive model to appraise the association. Results: The meta-analysis included 8 studies containing 1393 cervical cancer cases and 1307 controls. The aggregate data under heterozygous model and dominant inheritance model (OR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.55--0.80) indicated a significant association between rs1800872 and the low risk of cervical cancer in the entire population. And the aggregated data under the dominant inheritance model shows that rs1800872 is significantly associated with the reduction in the risk of cervical tumors in the entire population. Conclusion: Our conclusion is that the AC/AA + AC variant of Rs1800872 indicates a protective effect in the development of cervical cancer.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据