Skip to main content
. 2016 Sep;16(3):866–872. doi: 10.4314/ahs.v16i3.30

Table 2.

Summary of different comparative results.

N Cases/controls TT vs. CC CT vs. CC Dominant model Recessive model

Variables OR(95%CI) I2 OR(95%CI) I2 OR(95%CI) I2 OR(95%CI) I2
Total 7 1890/2929 0.81(0.64–1.04) 0.0% 0.92(0.81–1.05) 0.0% 0.90(0.80–1.02) 0.0% 0.84(0.66–1.06) 0.0%
Ethnicity
Asian 1 153/207 1.02(0.55–1.89) / 1.14(0.70–1.85) / 1.10(0.69–1.76) / 0.94(0.55–1.60) /
Caucasian 6 1737/2722 0.78(0.60–1.02) 0.0% 0.91(0.80–1.04) 0.0% 0.89(0.79–1.01) 0.0% 0.82(0.63–1.06) 0.0%
Disease type
UC 3 562/1118 0.86(0.59–1.24) 0.0% 0.84(0.67–1.05) 28.4% 0.90(0.74–1.11) 11.1% 0.95(0.67–1.35) 0.0%
CD 6 1325/2538 0.75(0.56–1.02) 0.0% 0.68(0.48–0.97) 82.4% 0.78(0.55–1.10) 78.9% 0.79(0.59–1.05) 12.3%

N: number; I2: Inconsistency index; CI: confidence interval; OR: odds ratio. When I2 > 50%, the random effects model was used,or else the fixed effects model was used.