Table 1. Main characteristics of the 29 studies for meta-analysis.
Number | Author | Year | Region | Total number of study | Male (%) | Genotypic distribution | Allele frequencies | HWE | ||||||||
CC | CT | TT | C | T | ||||||||||||
case | control | case | control | case | control | case | control | case | control | |||||||
1 | Sun, Lianga | 2013 | Beijing | 549 | 51.37 | 180 | 30 | 243 | 42 | 48 | 6 | 603 | 102 | 339 | 54 | Yes |
2 | Mei, Qingbu | 2012 | Heilongjiang | 215 | No | 17 | 17 | 51 | 70 | 23 | 37 | 85 | 104 | 97 | 144 | Yes |
3 | Dai, Hongshuanga | 2012 | Heilongjiang | 180 | 55.00 | 51 | 31 | 54 | 27 | 15 | 2 | 156 | 89 | 84 | 31 | Yes |
4 | Chen, Airong | 2010 | Gansu | 219 | 59.62 | 57 | 34 | 74 | 17 | 33 | 4 | 188 | 85 | 128 | 25 | Yes |
5 | Zhang, Qiaohuia,b,c | 2009 | Shanxi | 278 | 60.79 | 66 | 26 | 94 | 17 | 66 | 9 | 226 | 69 | 226 | 35 | Yes |
6 | Qiu, Yia,b | 2009 | Zhejiang | 299 | 54.85 | 83 | 53 | 68 | 29 | 48 | 18 | 234 | 135 | 164 | 65 | No |
7 | Hu, Linga,b | 2009 | Shanxi | 211 | 62.56 | 47 | 26 | 63 | 17 | 49 | 9 | 157 | 69 | 163 | 35 | Yes |
8 | Wen, Jie | 2008 | Shanghai | 211 | 52.13 | 43 | 27 | 82 | 25 | 29 | 5 | 168 | 79 | 140 | 35 | Yes |
9 | Luo, Dana,b | 2008 | Beijing | 226 | 47.79 | 59 | 43 | 63 | 31 | 19 | 11 | 181 | 117 | 101 | 53 | Yes |
10 | Chen, Ping | 2008 | Heilongjiang | 240 | No | 19 | 14 | 70 | 73 | 27 | 37 | 108 | 101 | 124 | 147 | No |
11 | Zhang, Chunyua,b,c | 2007 | Neimenggu | 141 | 51.77 | 28 | 34 | 29 | 19 | 19 | 12 | 85 | 87 | 67 | 43 | No |
12 | Luo, Dana,b | 2007 | Beijing | 274 | 52.64 | 55 | 42 | 102 | 35 | 26 | 14 | 222 | 119 | 154 | 63 | Yes |
13 | Yue, Honga,b,c | 2006 | Shanxi | 282 | 57.09 | 66 | 17 | 131 | 11 | 55 | 2 | 263 | 45 | 241 | 15 | Yes |
14 | Xiao, Yana,b | 2006 | Guizhou | 146 | No | 16 | 47 | 53 | 25 | 4 | 1 | 85 | 119 | 61 | 27 | Yes |
15 | Sun, Yinga,b,c | 2006 | Tianjin | 355 | 60 | 113 | 47 | 85 | 25 | 68 | 17 | 311 | 119 | 221 | 49 | No |
16 | Shi, Chengjun | 2006 | Guangdong | 295 | No | 108 | 68 | 60 | 34 | 18 | 7 | 276 | 170 | 96 | 48 | Yes |
17 | Liang, Wenchang | 2005 | Zhejiang | 122 | No | 33 | 17 | 34 | 18 | 15 | 5 | 100 | 52 | 64 | 28 | Yes |
18 | Guo, Lixina,b | 2005 | Beijing | 288 | 57.29 | 60 | 58 | 51 | 34 | 50 | 35 | 171 | 150 | 151 | 104 | No |
19 | Sun, Jiazhong. | 2005 | Hubei | 342 | 67.25 | 101 | 63 | 78 | 31 | 49 | 20 | 280 | 57 | 176 | 71 | No |
20 | Zhou, Juna,b,c | 2004 | Heilongjiang | 208 | No | 16 | 8 | 78 | 31 | 45 | 30 | 110 | 47 | 168 | 91 | Yes |
21 | Sun, Leia,b,c | 2004 | Shandong | 155 | 47.44 | 27 | 29 | 52 | 18 | 27 | 2 | 106 | 76 | 106 | 24 | Yes |
22 | Mao, Lia,b,c | 2004 | Jiangsu | 122 | 46.92 | 35 | 18 | 37 | 18 | 11 | 3 | 107 | 70 | 59 | 24 | Yes |
23 | Chen, Aironga,b,c | 2004 | Gansu | 126 | 64.29 | 24 | 21 | 45 | 9 | 22 | 5 | 93 | 51 | 89 | 19 | No |
24 | Xu, Jinshenga,b,c | 2003 | Hebei | 175 | 45.14 | 30 | 7 | 54 | 25 | 39 | 20 | 114 | 39 | 132 | 65 | Yes |
25 | Zhang, Guodong | 2002 | Shanghai | 298 | No | 56 | 40 | 108 | 49 | 34 | 11 | 220 | 129 | 176 | 71 | Yes |
26 | Shi, Jieping | 2002 | Jilin | 106 | No | 12 | 22 | 31 | 29 | 7 | 5 | 55 | 55 | 45 | 45 | Yes |
27 | Yang, Guoqinga,c | 2001 | Beijing | 288 | 53.61 | 57 | 26 | 113 | 28 | 56 | 8 | 227 | 80 | 225 | 44 | Yes |
28 | Wang, Longqinga | 2001 | Guangdong | 264 | 52.27 | 65 | 37 | 75 | 38 | 39 | 10 | 205 | 112 | 153 | 58 | Yes |
29 | Hu, Shenga,b,c | 2001 | Hubei | 168 | 55.36 | 49 | 30 | 48 | 24 | 16 | 1 | 146 | 84 | 80 | 26 | Yes |
HWE: Hardy-Weinbery equilibrium; a: The distribution of gender between case and control group is in balance; b: The distribution of age between case and control group is in balance; c: The distribution of BMI between case and control group is in balance.