Table 2.
Case | Control | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Study | Population location | Year | Age | AA | AG | GG | AA | AG | GG | OR | 95%CI |
Chan, I H[16] | Hong Kong | 2008 | 10.4 ± 3.7 | 101 | 135 | 59 | 51 | 89 | 33 | 1.06 | 0.66-1.70 |
Cui, LY(Han)[17] | Neimenggu | 2007 | 21-62 | 6 | 34 | 2 | 6 | 20 | 4 | 0.33 | 0.06-1.90 |
Cui, LY(Meng)[17] | Neimenggu | 2007 | 26-69 | 3 | 21 | 6 | 6 | 19 | 5 | 1.25 | 0.34-4.64 |
Gao, J M[18] | Beijing | 2004 | 38.7 ± 13.8 | 38 | 59 | 28 | 35 | 53 | 8 | 3.18 | 1.37-7.33 |
Li, H[19] | Shanghai | 2009 | 3-12 | 86 | 76 | 30 | 46 | 100 | 46 | 0.59 | 0.35-0.98 |
Liao, W[20] | Chongqing | 2001 | 5.8 ± 4.3 | 12 | 27 | 11 | 14 | 28 | 8 | 1.48 | 0.54-4.06 |
Qiu, Y Y(2008)[21] | Jiangsu | 2008 | 63.2 ± 5.6 | 25 | 31 | 14 | 34 | 55 | 23 | 0.97 | 0.46-2.04 |
Shi, X H[22] | Jiangsu | 2008 | 34(14-66) | 22 | 19 | 7 | 10 | 25 | 13 | 0.46 | 0.17-1.28 |
Wang, Z[23] | Anhui | 2001 | 30.6 ± 16.2 | 52 | 54 | 22 | 38 | 64 | 34 | 0.62 | 0.34-1.14 |
Xie, Y[24] | Shanghai | 2008 | 4.98 ± 2.78 | 14 | 37 | 6 | 21 | 34 | 7 | 0.92 | 0.29-2.93 |
Xing, J[25] | Beijing | 2001 | 20-66 | 9 | 62 | 29 | 29 | 55 | 16 | 2.14 | 1.08-4.26 |
Zhang, X Y[26] | Chongqing | 2008 | 1.08-17 | 81 | 111 | 25 | 19 | 23 | 8 | 0.68 | 0.29-1.62 |
Wang, J Y[27] | Taiwan | 2009 | 7.82 ± 3.81 | 138 | 207 | 97 | 173 | 250 | 87 | 1.37 | 0.99-1.89 |