Table 2.

Summary of different comparative results

	No. of studies	OR (95% CI)	P	I2	ph	Model	Publication bias
							Egger	Begg
-308G>A
Dominant model (GG+GA vs. AA)	14	0.53 (0.35-0.81)	0.004	26.2%	0.17	Fix	0.83	0.66
Recessive model (GG vs. GA+AA)	17	0.83 (0.62-1.10)	0.19	65.4%	<0.001	Random	0.90	0.82
Homozygote model (GG vs. AA)	14	0.51 (0.33-0.78)	0.002	35.6%	0.09	Fix	0.84	0.83
Additive model (G vs. A)	17	0.81 (0.63-1.04)	0.11	68.0%	<0.001	Random	0.43	0.77
-863C>A
Dominant model (CC+CA vs. AA)	4	0.78 (0.25-2.47)	0.67	72.8%	0.01	Random	0.03	0.73
Recessive model (CC vs. CA+AA)	4	1.01 (0.83-1.22)	0.96	0	0.72	Fix	0.06	0.31
Homozygote model (CC vs. AA)	4	0.80 (0.25-2.53)	0.70	71.7%	0.01	Random	0.10	0.73
Additive model (C vs. A)	4	1.08 (0.80-1.47)	0.61	61.0%	0.05	Random	0.88	0.73
-857C>T
Dominant model (CC+CT vs. TT)	5	2.10 (0.77-5.75)	0.15	54.0%	0.07	Random	0.42	0.81
Recessive model (CC vs. CT+TT)	5	0.84 (0.45-1.57)	0.59	85.0%	<0.001	Random	0.24	0.46
Homozygote model (CC vs. TT)	5	2.11 (0.72-6.12)	0.17	58.6%	0.047	Random	0.61	1.00
Homozygote model (C vs. T)	5	0.92 (0.55-1.53)	0.73	84.5%	<0.001	Random	0.13	0.46
-238G>A
Dominant model (GG+GA vs. AA)	4	0.33 (0.18-0.57)	<0.001	19.9%	0.29	Fix	0.33	0.09
Recessive model (GG vs. GA+AA)	8	0.62 (0.30-1.30)	0.21	85.4%	<0.001	Random	0.59	0.71
Homozygote model (GG vs. AA)	4	0.34 (0.06-2.12)	0.25	56.1%	0.078	Random	0.17	0.31
Additive model (G vs. A)	8	0.67 (0.35-1.26)	0.21	85.4%	<0.001	Random	0.32	0.39

Note. OR: Odds ratio; CI: Confidence interval; p_h: P value of heterogeneity.