IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0100133.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Common Variant rs4444235 near BMP4 Confers Genetic Susceptibility of Colorectal Cancer: An Updated Meta-Analysis Based on a Comprehensive Statistical Strategy

Author

Listed:
  • Li Liu
  • Qinji Su
  • Lixia Li
  • Xiaohui Lin
  • Yu Gan
  • Sidong Chen

Abstract

Objective: We performed an updated meta-analysis, using a comprehensive strategy of a logistic regression and a model-free approach, to evaluate more precisely the role of the rs4444235 variant near the Bone morphogenetic protein-4 (BMP4) gene in susceptibility to colorectal cancer (CRC). Methods: A total of 19 studies with 28770 cases and 28234 controls were included. Metagen system with logistic regression was applied to choose the most plausible genetic model for rs4444235. Generalized odds ratio (ORG) metric was used to provide a global test of relationship between rs4444235 and CRC risk. Results: Metagen analysis suggested the rs4444235 fitted best to an additive model. In assessment of the additive model, heterogeneity was observed (P = 0.059, I2 = 36.1), and pooled per-allele OR was 1.08 (95% CI = 1.05–1.11). Based on the model-free approach, pooled ORG was 1.09 (95% CI = 1.05–1.14) under a random-effect model. Stratified analyses suggested heterogeneity could be in part explained by population ethnicity, study design, sources of controls, and sample size. Sensitivity analysis further supported the robust stability of the current results, by showing similar pooled estimates before and after sequential removal of each study. Conclusions: This meta-analysis provides a robust estimate of the positive association between the rs4444235 and CRC risk and further emphasizes the importance of the rs4444235 in CRC risk prediction.

Suggested Citation

  • Li Liu & Qinji Su & Lixia Li & Xiaohui Lin & Yu Gan & Sidong Chen, 2014. "The Common Variant rs4444235 near BMP4 Confers Genetic Susceptibility of Colorectal Cancer: An Updated Meta-Analysis Based on a Comprehensive Statistical Strategy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-8, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0100133
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0100133
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0100133
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0100133&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0100133?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John P A Ioannidis, 2005. "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(8), pages 1-1, August.
    2. Bagos Pantelis G & Nikolopoulos Georgios K, 2007. "A Method for Meta-Analysis of Case-Control Genetic Association Studies Using Logistic Regression," Statistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology, De Gruyter, vol. 6(1), pages 1-28, June.
    3. Zintzaras Elias, 2010. "The Generalized Odds Ratio as a Measure of Genetic Risk Effect in the Analysis and Meta-Analysis of Association Studies," Statistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology, De Gruyter, vol. 9(1), pages 1-14, May.
    4. David Moher & Alessandro Liberati & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Douglas G Altman & The PRISMA Group, 2009. "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-6, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Matteo M. Galizzi & Daniel Navarro-Martinez, 2019. "On the External Validity of Social Preference Games: A Systematic Lab-Field Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(3), pages 976-1002, March.
    2. Jinxian Sun & Jianrong Hu & Chunlin Tu & Anyuan Zhong & Huajun Xu, 2015. "Obstructive Sleep Apnea Susceptibility Genes in Chinese Population: A Field Synopsis and Meta-Analysis of Genetic Association Studies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(8), pages 1-13, August.
    3. Marlo M Vernon & E Andrew Balas & Shaher Momani, 2018. "Are university rankings useful to improve research? A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(3), pages 1-15, March.
    4. Jenny T van der Steen & Cornelis A van den Bogert & Mirjam C van Soest-Poortvliet & Soulmaz Fazeli Farsani & René H J Otten & Gerben ter Riet & Lex M Bouter, 2018. "Determinants of selective reporting: A taxonomy based on content analysis of a random selection of the literature," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-15, February.
    5. Pascucci, Domenico & Sassano, Michele & Nurchis, Mario Cesare & Cicconi, Michela & Acampora, Anna & Park, Daejun & Morano, Carmen & Damiani, Gianfranco, 2021. "Impact of interprofessional collaboration on chronic disease management: Findings from a systematic review of clinical trial and meta-analysis," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(2), pages 191-202.
    6. Chin, Jason & Zeiler, Kathryn, 2021. "Replicability in Empirical Legal Research," LawArXiv 2b5k4, Center for Open Science.
    7. Ute Laermann-Nguyen & Martin Backfisch, 2021. "Innovation crisis in the pharmaceutical industry? A survey," SN Business & Economics, Springer, vol. 1(12), pages 1-37, December.
    8. Keith R Lohse & Kristin L Sainani & J Andrew Taylor & Michael L Butson & Emma J Knight & Andrew J Vickers, 2020. "Systematic review of the use of “magnitude-based inference” in sports science and medicine," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-22, June.
    9. Alexander Schniedermann, 2021. "A comparison of systematic reviews and guideline-based systematic reviews in medical studies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(12), pages 9829-9846, December.
    10. İlkay Unay-Gailhard & Mark A. Brennen, 2022. "How digital communications contribute to shaping the career paths of youth: a review study focused on farming as a career option," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(4), pages 1491-1508, December.
    11. Mahin Ghafari & Vali Baigi & Zahra Cheraghi & Amin Doosti-Irani, 2016. "The Prevalence of Asymptomatic Bacteriuria in Iranian Pregnant Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-10, June.
    12. Elizabeth T Cafiero-Fonseca & Andrew Stawasz & Sydney T Johnson & Reiko Sato & David E Bloom, 2017. "The full benefits of adult pneumococcal vaccination: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-23, October.
    13. Santos Urbina & Sofía Villatoro & Jesús Salinas, 2021. "Self-Regulated Learning and Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments in Higher Education: A Scoping Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-12, June.
    14. Oded Berger-Tal & Alison L Greggor & Biljana Macura & Carrie Ann Adams & Arden Blumenthal & Amos Bouskila & Ulrika Candolin & Carolina Doran & Esteban Fernández-Juricic & Kiyoko M Gotanda & Catherine , 2019. "Systematic reviews and maps as tools for applying behavioral ecology to management and policy," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 30(1), pages 1-8.
    15. Nadine Desrochers & Adèle Paul‐Hus & Jen Pecoskie, 2017. "Five decades of gratitude: A meta‐synthesis of acknowledgments research," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(12), pages 2821-2833, December.
    16. Alene Sze Jing Yong & Yi Heng Lim & Mark Wing Loong Cheong & Ednin Hamzah & Siew Li Teoh, 2022. "Willingness-to-pay for cancer treatment and outcome: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(6), pages 1037-1057, August.
    17. Xue-Ying Xu & Hong Kong & Rui-Xiang Song & Yu-Han Zhai & Xiao-Fei Wu & Wen-Si Ai & Hong-Bo Liu, 2014. "The Effectiveness of Noninvasive Biomarkers to Predict Hepatitis B-Related Significant Fibrosis and Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-16, June.
    18. Vicente Miñana-Signes & Manuel Monfort-Pañego & Javier Valiente, 2021. "Teaching Back Health in the School Setting: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(3), pages 1-18, January.
    19. Agnieszka A. Tubis & Katarzyna Grzybowska, 2022. "In Search of Industry 4.0 and Logistics 4.0 in Small-Medium Enterprises—A State of the Art Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(22), pages 1-26, November.
    20. Obsa Urgessa Ayana & Jima Degaga, 2022. "Effects of rural electrification on household welfare: a meta-regression analysis," International Review of Economics, Springer;Happiness Economics and Interpersonal Relations (HEIRS), vol. 69(2), pages 209-261, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0100133. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.