Table 4.
Meta-analysis of the association between the MCP-1 rs1024611polymorphism and DN risk (DN vs. T2DM)
| Genetic variant | Study group | No. of studies | Heterogeneity test | Association test (FE model) | Association test (RE model) | Publication bias | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I2 | P value | OR (95% CI) | P value | OR (95% CI) | P value | P value* | |||
| GG + GA vs.AA (dominant) | Overall | 8 | 52.7 | 0.039 | 1.13 (0.93–1.37) | 0.227 | 1.03 (0.74–1.42) | 0.881 | 0.572 |
| Population | |||||||||
| Asian | 7 | 59.4 | 0.022 | 1.12 (0.92–1.37) | 0.254 | 1.00 (0.69–1.44) | 0.996 | ||
| Caucasian | 1 | - | - | 1.21 (0.51–2.86) | 0.662 | 1.21 (0.51–2.86) | 0.662 | ||
| Genotyping method | |||||||||
| PCR–RFLP | 6 | 0.0 | 0.458 | 0.83 (0.63–1.10) | 0.197 | 0.84 (0.63–1.11) | 0.220 | ||
| ARMS-PCR | 2 | 43.7 | 0.182 | 1.49 (1.14–1.95) | 0.004 | 1.67 (0.96–2.90) | 0.069 | ||
| GG vs. GA + AA (recessive)a | Overall | 6 | 73.9 | 0.002 | 1.08 (0.86–1.35) | 0.532 | 1.07 (0.66–1.72) | 0.786 | 0.875 |
| Population | |||||||||
| Asian | 6 | 73.9 | 0.002 | 1.08 (0.86–1.35) | 0.532 | 1.07 (0.66–1.72) | 0.786 | ||
| Genotyping method | |||||||||
| PCR–RFLP | 4 | 34.7 | 0.204 | 0.79 (0.60–1.04) | 0.098 | 0.78 (0.54–1.11) | 0.167 | ||
| ARMS-PCR | 2 | 0.0 | 0.728 | 2.10 (1.38–3.19) | < 0.001 | 2.10 (1.38–3.19) | 0.001 | ||
| GG vs.AA (homozygote model)a | Overall | 6 | 77.5 | < 0.001 | 1.24 (0.92–1.66) | 0.161 | 1.06 (0.54–2.10) | 0.867 | 0.646 |
| Population | |||||||||
| Asian | 6 | 77.5 | < 0.001 | 1.24 (0.92–1.66) | 0.161 | 1.06 (0.54–2.10) | 0.867 | ||
| Genotyping method | |||||||||
| PCR–RFLP | 4 | 42.8 | 0.155 | 0.70 (0.47–1.05) | 0.087 | 0.67 (0.38–1.17) | 0.158 | ||
| ARMS-PCR | 2 | 0.0 | 0.399 | 2.52 (1.59–3.97) | < 0.001 | 2.51 (1.59–3.97) | < 0.001 | ||
| GG vs.GA (heterozygote model)a | Overall | 6 | 56.1 | 0.044 | 1.06 (0.83–1.36) | 0.631 | 1.05 (0.71–1.55) | 0.802 | 0.975 |
| Population | |||||||||
| Asian | 6 | 56.1 | 0.044 | 1.06 (0.83–1.36) | 0.631 | 1.05 (0.71–1.55) | 0.802 | ||
| Genotyping method | |||||||||
| PCR–RFLP | 4 | 7.5 | 0.355 | 0.83 (0.62–1.12) | 0.218 | 0.83 (0.60–1.13) | 0.236 | ||
| ARMS-PCR | 2 | 0.0 | 0.963 | 1.80 (1.16–2.79) | 0.009 | 1.80 (1.16–2.79) | 0.009 | ||
| G vs. A (allele contrast model)b | Overall | 7 | 74.9 | 0.001 | 1.10 (0.96–1.26) | 0.159 | 1.03 (0.76–1.40) | 0.835 | 0.660 |
| Population | |||||||||
| Asian | 6 | 79.1 | < 0.001 | 1.10 (0.96–1.26) | 0.173 | 1.02 (0.73–1.42) | 0.905 | ||
| Caucasian | 1 | - | - | 1.15 (0.55–2.40) | 0.708 | 1.15 (0.55–2.40) | 0.708 | ||
| Genotyping method | |||||||||
| PCR–RFLP | 5 | 39.0 | 0.161 | 0.85 (0.70–1.02) | 0.086 | 0.84 (0.65–1.08) | 0.179 | ||
| ARMS-PCR | 2 | 51.4 | 0.152 | 1.46 (1.20–1.77) | < 0.001 | 1.58 (1.08–2.32) | 0.020 | ||
Abbreviations: No. Number, RE Random-effects, FE Fixed-effects, PCR–RFLP Polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism, ARMS-PCR Amplification refractory mutation detection system-polymerase chain reaction
− Not available
* Publication bias test (Egger’s test)
a OR (95% CI) in two articles could not be calculated (Jeoh et al., 2013 and Karadeniz et al., 2010 [20])
b OR (95% CI) in one article could not be calculated (Jeoh et al., 2013)