Table 4.

Pooled results for the association of DAPK1 promoter hypermethylation with CC risk.

Comparisons	Studies (N)	Sample size (CC/controls)	Heterogeneity		Pmeta-regression	Modela	Effect size
			I2(%)	PQ-test			OR (95% CI)	P
Total	31	1614/1062	56	<0.001	–	R	23.17 (13.75–39.02)	<0.001
Ethnicity					0.978
Asian	17	978/663	54	0.004		R	24.47 (12.72–47.06)	<0.001
Caucasian	10	386/227	62	0.005		R	17.79 (5.93–53.34)	<0.001
Other ethnicities	4	250/172	6	0.361		F	40.77 (15.63–106.29)	<0.001
Source of controls					0.931
Healthy	17	718/392	52	0.006		R	23.43 (10.61–51.77)	<0.001
Non-healthyb	14	896/670	62	0.001		R	23.77 (11.55–48.96)	<0.001
Study quality					0.049
High (> 11)	17	836/476	16	0.269		F	33.27 (19.81-55.88)	<0.001
Low (≤ 11)	14	778/586	69	<0.001		R	14.88 (7.05-31.42)	<0.001
Primer set					0.908
1	22	1243/884	59	<0.001		R	22.04 (11.76-41.33)	<0.001
2-6	7	272/132	58	0.027		R	24.63 (7.46-81.27)	<0.001

N, number; F, fixed-effects model; R, Random-effects model; CC, cervical cancer.

^aWhen significant heterogeneity was found (I² ≥ 50% or P_Q−test ≤ 0.1), a random-effects model with the inverse variance method was used to pool the results; otherwise, a fixed-effects model was applied.

^bNon-healthy controls included autologous controls, controls with benign gynecological diseases, and mixed controls.

Bold values indicate significant results with P < 0.05 in meta-regression.