Table 4.
Author | Country | Ethnicity | Case/control | Case | Control | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TT | TC | CC | TT | TC | CC | ||||
Study1#1 | China | Han | 432/864 | 373 | 54 | 5 | 793 | 69 | 2 |
Study2#2 | China | Han | 167/278 | 136 | 29 | 2 | 252 | 25 | 1 |
Jabandziev 2014* | Czech | NA | 114/529 | 85 | 29 | 432 | 97 | ||
Hubacek 2001 | Germany | NA | 204/250 | 157 | 42 | 5 | 212 | 38 | 0 |
Zeng’s Chongqing and Zhejiang cohorts were included in our study, so they were not presented independently
#1Study1 represented the Southwest cohorts in our study
#2Study2 represented Southeast cohorts in our study
*Jabandziev’s study just provided genotype number for TT vs. TT + TC. The number of TT and CC was not shown separately. 29 and 97 represented the TT + TC in case and control, respectively