4.5 Article

Relationship between PPAR-gamma gene polymorphisms and ischemic stroke risk: A meta-analysis

期刊

BRAIN AND BEHAVIOR
卷 11, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/brb3.2434

关键词

meta-analysis; polymorphism; PPAR-gamma; stroke

资金

  1. Health Commission of Hubei Province Scientific Research [WJ2021M049]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This meta-analysis investigated the association between PPAR-gamma gene polymorphisms and ischemic stroke risk. The results suggested that rs1801282 C/G polymorphism may be associated with an increased risk for ischemic stroke, while rs3856806 C/T polymorphism showed no significant association with ischemic stroke risk.
Background: cPublished researches have suggested some associations between PPAR-gamma and ischemic stroke (IS) development. This meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the association between PPAR-gamma gene polymorphisms and IS risk. Materials and methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and WanFang databases. The pooled association of odd ratios (ORs) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated to assess the IS risk of PPAR-gamma rs1801282 C/G and rs3856806 C/T polymorphisms. Furthermore, the heterogeneity test, cumulative analyses, sensitivity analyses, and publication bias were conducted. Result: Sixteen publications with 3786 cases and 5343 controls were identified. Overall findings indicated that rs1801282 C/G polymorphism may be associated with an increased risk for IS (GG vs. CC: OR = 2.17 95%CI = 1.09-4.35, p = .03, I-2 = 0%; GG vs. CC+CG: OR = 2.15, 95%CI = 1.07-4.32, p = .03, I-2 = 0%). The similar results were also found in the subgroup analysis. In addition, no significant association was observed between rs3856806 C/T polymorphism and IS risk. Conclusion: In conclusion, our study showed that PPAR-gamma rs1801282 C/G polymorphism probably plays an important role in IS occurrence. The result should be verified with more studies in the future.

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