4.1 Article

Association between apolipoprotein B EcoRI polymorphisms and coronary heart disease

期刊

WIENER KLINISCHE WOCHENSCHRIFT
卷 128, 期 23-24, 页码 890-897

出版社

SPRINGER WIEN
DOI: 10.1007/s00508-016-1072-z

关键词

Meta-analysis; Apolipoprotein B; EcoRI polymorphisms; Coronary heart disease; Case-control study

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31071166, 81373085]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province [8251008901000007]
  3. Science and Technology Planning Project of Guangdong Province [2009A030301004]
  4. Dongguan City Science and Technology Project [2011108101015]
  5. Guangdong Medical University [JB1214, XG1001, XZ1105, STIF201122]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study was carried out to examine the association between apolipoprotein B (ApoB) EcoRI polymorphism (E- vs. E+) (rs1042031) and coronary heart disease (CHD) risk by systematically analyzing multiple independent studies. The Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (HWE) test was applied to assess genotype frequency distribution in healthy controls. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS). Power analysis was performed with Power and Precision V4 software. A fixed effect model was used because no deviation from homogeneity was found. Publication bias was quantified and examined with Begg's funnel plot test and Egger's linear regression method. The meta-analysis was performed by Stata 12.0 software. A total of 21 eligible association studies were merged in this meta-analysis and the pooled sample consisted of 2994 CHD patients and 3258 healthy controls. No significant publication bias and heterogeneity were observed in these studies. The pooled odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of E- vs. E+ were 1.18 (1.06-1.32). The pooled OR (95% CI) of E+ E- + E- E- vs. E+ E+ was 1.18 (1.04-1.34). This meta-analysis indicated that ApoB EcoRI confers a moderate risk for CHD and the E- allele at this locus might be a susceptibility allele for the development of CHD.

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

4.1
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