4.6 Article

Association between C-reactive protein gene+1059 G/C polymorphism and the risk of coronary heart disease: a meta-analysis

期刊

CHINESE MEDICAL JOURNAL
卷 126, 期 24, 页码 4780-4785

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0366-6999.20130965

关键词

-

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background C-reactive protein (CRP) gene +1059 G/C polymorphism has been reported to be associated with coronary heart disease (CHD) risk, but the results remain inconclusive. This meta-analysis was therefore conducted to clarify these controversies. Methods A comprehensive search was conducted to identify all case control studies on the association between CRP gene +1059 G/C polymorphism and CHD risk. All the related studies were further strictly selected according to the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis was performed with STATA 10.1 (StataCorp, USA). The association was assessed by odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (Cl); both Begg's funnel plot and Egger's regression test were used to assess the publication bias. Results This meta-analysis on a total of 13 studies comprising 6316 CHD cases and 4467 controls showed no significant association between CRP gene +1059 G/C polymorphism and CHD risk in the overall study (for ClC+ClG vs. GIG: OR=1.01, 95% Cl=0.81-1.25, P=0.96; for ClC vs. ClG+G/G: OR=1.17, 95% Cl=0.77-1.77, P=0.47; for ClC vs. G/G: OR=1.17, 95% Cl=0.77-1.77, P=0.47; for C allele vs. G allele: OR=1.01, 95% Cl=0.81-1.24, P=0.96). However, in the subgroup analysis by ethnicity, the results showed significant association between CRP gene +1059 G/C polymorphism and CHD risk among Caucasians (for ClC vs. G/G: OR=2.54, 95% Cl=1.13-5.72, P=0.02; ClC vs. ClG+G/G: OR=2.45, 95% Cl=1.09-5.51, P=0.03), but not among Asians and Africans (P >0.05). Conclusion CRP gene +1059 G/C polymorphism may be associated with increased CHD risk among Caucasians and more evidences need to validate the conclusion.

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

4.6
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