Reply to ‘Comment on: The NQO1 polymorphism C609T (Pro187Ser) and cancer susceptibility: a comprehensive meta-analysis’
Year: 2014
Type: letter
Abstract: We have strictly followed the published general guidelines for conducting meta-analyses ( Stroup et al, 2000 ; Minelli et al, 2009 ). Therefore we tested for deviations from HWE and reported in our paper the deviation of five studies from HWE. Deviation from HWE may imply genotyping error and/or possible heterogeneity in the control population. Most of the excluded studies strongly violated HWE with P -values=0. Nevertheless, when the five studies were included in the meta-analysis the association remained statistically significant with almost unaltered odds ratios. For example, for the TT vs CC model OR=1.17 (1.06–1.30), P =0.002, compared to the reported results with the exclusion of the five studies, OR=1.18 (1.07–1.31), P =0.002. This is not unexpected given the large number of studies included and the fact that the majority of studies were in compliance with the HWE principle. This confirms that no bias has been introduced by the exclusion of the five studies and that the concluded positive association between total cancer risk and the investigated polymorphism is unaffected.
Source: British Journal of Cancer
DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2014.295
Authors: B Lajin, A Alachkar
Institutions: University of Aleppo, University of California, Irvine
Language: English
Subfield: Molecular Biology
Domain: Life Sciences
Open Access status: hybrid
Estimated APC paid: $5,190
OpenAlex ID: W4246068094