Table 3. Overall and stratified meta-analyses of the association between mEH polymorphism Tyr113His and risk of hepatocellular carcinoma.

Genotype comparison	OR [95% CI]	Z (P value)	Heterogeneity of study design			Analysis model
			?2	df (P value)	I2
Total (1696 cases, 3600 controls)
113His-allele vs. 113Tyr-allele	1.35 [1.04, 1.75]	2.28 (0.02)	58.56	10 (<0.001)	83%	Random
His/His vs. Tyr/Tyr	1.65 [1.07, 2.54]	2.28 (0.02)	44.87	10 (<0.001)	78%	Random
His/His vs. Tyr/His+Tyr/Tyr	1.54 [1.21, 1.96]	3.51 (<0.001)	19.34	10 (0.04)	48%	Random
Tyr/Tyr vs. His/His+Tyr/His	0.73 [0.50, 1.07]	1.62 (0.11)	58.06	10 (<0.001)	83%	Random
Ethnic subgroups
Chinese (1070 cases, 1838 controls)
113His-allele vs. 113Tyr-allele	1.62 [1.15, 2.28]	2.76 (0.006)	28.65	5 (<0.001)	83%	Random
His/His vs. Tyr/Tyr	1.79 [1.08, 2.97]	2.25 (0.02)	19.27	5 (0.002)	74%	Random
His/His vs. Tyr/His+Tyr/Tyr	1.52 [1.26, 1.83]	4.40 (<0.001)	2.48	5 (0.78)	0%	Fixed
Tyr/Tyr vs. His/His+Tyr/His	0.63 [0.35, 1.13]	1.54 (0.12)	32.43	5 (<0.001)	85%	Random
Others (UK, Sudan, Italy, Gambia, and India) (577 cases, 1762 controls)
113His-allele vs. 113Tyr-allele	1.07 [0.76, 1.51]	0.39 (0.70)	16.69	4 (0.002)	76%	Random
His/His vs. Tyr/Tyr	1.29 [0.61, 2.71]	0.67 (0.50)	18.11	4 (0.001)	78%	Random
His/His vs. Tyr/His+Tyr/Tyr	1.31 [0.76, 2.26]	0.97 (0.33)	11.11	4 (0.03)	64%	Random
Tyr/Tyr vs. His/His+Tyr/His	0.92 [0.59, 1.42]	0.39 (0.70)	15.13	4 (0.004)	74%	Random