Table.1 characteristics of included studies
|
study
|
country
|
ethnicity
|
year
|
Study design
|
Genotype method
|
Source of control
|
case/conraol
|
HWE
|
NOS
|
Chaimuangraj et al. [7]
|
Thailand
|
Asian
|
2006
|
Case–control
|
PCR
|
HB
|
44/30
|
Y
|
6
|
Manchanda et al. [8]
|
India
|
Caucasian
|
2010
|
Case–control
|
PCR–RFLP
|
HB
|
160/160
|
N
|
6
|
Huang et al. [13]
|
china
|
Asian
|
2006
|
Case–control
|
PCR–RFLP
|
HB
|
189/502
|
Y
|
5
|
Bousema et al. [15]
|
Netherland
|
Caucasian
|
2000
|
Case–control
|
PCR–RFLP
|
HB
|
93/56
|
Y
|
6
|
Hamasaki et al. [16]
|
Japan
|
Asian
|
2002
|
Case–control
|
PCR
|
HB
|
83/90
|
Y
|
6
|
EI Ezzi et al. [17]
|
Lebanon
|
Caucasian
|
2014
|
Case–control
|
PCR–RFLP
|
HB
|
68/79
|
Y
|
6
|
Zhang et al. [18]
|
china
|
Asian
|
2017
|
Case–control
|
PCR–RFLP
|
HB
|
452/501
|
Y
|
6
|
Ruan et al. [19]
|
china
|
Asian
|
2015
|
Cohort
|
PCR–RFLP
|
HB
|
200/200
|
Y
|
5
|
Habuchi et al. [21]
|
Japan
|
Asia
|
2000
|
Case–control
|
PCR–RFLP
|
PB
|
209/128
|
Y
|
6
|
Nuneset et al. [22]
|
America
|
Caucasian
|
2016
|
Case–control
|
PCR–RFLP
|
BP
|
41/169
|
Y
|
6
|
Abbreviations: HB, hospital-based, PB, population-based, HWE, Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium, N, non-HWE, Y, HWE,
NOS, Newcastle–Ottawa Scale.
Table.2 Results of the association between Apa-1 polymorphism and BPH risk in different ethnicities
|
|
|
Studies
|
Overall effect
|
Heterogeneity
|
Public bias
|
Comparison
|
OR (95%CI)
|
Z-score
|
p-value
|
I2(%)
|
P-value
|
Begg's test
|
Egger'stest
|
whole
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WW VS ww
|
5
|
1.078 [0.731 -1.591]
|
0.38
|
0.704
|
0
|
0.632
|
0.806
|
0.998
|
WW VS Ww
|
5
|
0.962 [0.753-1.229]
|
0.31
|
0.756
|
30.7
|
0.217
|
0.806
|
0.172
|
WW VS Ww/ ww
|
5
|
0.953[0.755-1.202]
|
0.41
|
0.684
|
34.7
|
0.19
|
0.806
|
0.246
|
ww VS WW/ Ww
|
5
|
1.003[0.753-1.335]
|
0.02
|
0.986
|
0
|
0.749
|
0.462
|
0.093
|
Ww VS WW/ ww
|
5
|
1.039[0.842-1.282]
|
0.36
|
0.721
|
18.3
|
0.298
|
0.086
|
0.038
|
W VS w
|
5
|
1.123[0.830-1.519]
|
0.75
|
0.454
|
62.6
|
0.03
|
0.806
|
0.246
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Caucasian
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WW VS ww
|
2
|
1.294 [0.630-2.658]
|
0.7
|
0.483
|
0
|
0.714
|
|
|
WW VS Ww
|
2
|
1.669 [0.908-3.068]
|
1.65
|
0.099
|
0
|
0.483
|
|
|
WW VS Ww/ ww
|
2
|
1.566 [0.885-2.770]
|
1.54
|
0.124
|
0
|
0.493
|
|
|
ww VS WW/ Ww
|
2
|
1.041 [0.608-1.782]
|
0.15
|
0.884
|
0
|
0.901
|
|
|
Ww VS WW/ ww
|
2
|
0.718 [0.448-1.153]
|
1.37
|
0.17
|
0
|
0.389
|
|
|
W VS w
|
2
|
1.561[1.096-2.223]
|
2.47
|
0.013
|
0
|
0.38
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asian
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WW VS ww
|
3
|
0.999[0.629 -1.586]
|
0
|
0.997
|
3.7
|
0.354
|
1
|
0.466
|
WW VS Ww
|
3
|
0.864[0.661 -1.130]
|
1.07
|
0.286
|
0
|
0.477
|
1
|
0.466
|
WW VS Ww/ ww
|
3
|
0.865[0.671 -1.115]
|
1.12
|
0.261
|
4.5
|
0.351
|
1
|
0.626
|
ww VS WW/ Ww
|
3
|
0.988[0.704 -1.386]
|
0.07
|
0.943
|
0
|
0.389
|
0.296
|
0.117
|
Ww VS WW/ ww
|
3
|
1.140[0.900 -1.442]
|
1.09
|
0.277
|
0
|
0.533
|
0.296
|
0.035
|
W VS w
|
3
|
0.942[0.712 -1.247]
|
0.42
|
0.677
|
43.1
|
0.172
|
1
|
0.999
|
Note: homozygote model,WW vs. ww, heterozygous model, WW vs. Ww, dominant model, WW vs. Ww/ ww, recessive model, ww vs. WW/ Ww, over-dominant model, Ww vs. WW/ ww, allele genetic model, W vs. W, OR, odds ratio, CI, confidence interval.
Table.3 Results of the association between Bsm-1 polymorphism and BPH risk in different ethnicities
|
|
|
Studies
|
Overall effect
|
Heterogeneity
|
Public bias
|
Comparison
|
OR (95%CI)
|
Z-score
|
p-value
|
I2(%)
|
P-value
|
Begg's test
|
Egger'stest
|
whole
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WW VS ww
|
5
|
1.774 [0.626 - 5.028]
|
1.08
|
0.281
|
77.4
|
0.001
|
0.462
|
0.77
|
WW VS Ww
|
5
|
0.788 [0.546- 1.138]
|
1.27
|
0.204
|
45.5
|
0.119
|
0.462
|
0.302
|
WW VS Ww/ ww
|
5
|
0.860[0.605-1.222]
|
0.84
|
0.4
|
11.6
|
0.34
|
0.462
|
0.325
|
ww VS WW/ Ww
|
5
|
0.599[0.199-1.803]
|
0.91
|
0.362
|
91.3
|
0
|
0.462
|
0.194
|
Ww VS WW/ ww
|
5
|
1.371[0.588-3.200]
|
0.73
|
0.465
|
88.8
|
0
|
0.806
|
0.706
|
W VS w
|
5
|
1.068[0.664-1.717]
|
0.27
|
0.787
|
81.40%
|
0
|
0.806
|
0.664
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Caucasian
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WW VS ww
|
3
|
2.717 [0.543-13.595]
|
1.22
|
0.224
|
86.8
|
0.001
|
0.296
|
0.569
|
WW VS Ww
|
3
|
0.678 [0.454-1.013]
|
1.9
|
0.058
|
44.5
|
0.165
|
1
|
0.67
|
WW VS Ww/ ww
|
3
|
0.769 [0.524-1.126]
|
1.35
|
0.177
|
0.2
|
0.367
|
1
|
0.576
|
ww VS WW/ Ww
|
3
|
0.307 [0.100-0.943]
|
2.06
|
0.039
|
84.3
|
0.002
|
1
|
0.241
|
Ww VS WW/ ww
|
3
|
2.194 [1.553-3.100]
|
4.45
|
0
|
7.3
|
0.34
|
1
|
0.412
|
W VS w
|
3
|
1.372 [0.798-2.359]
|
1.14
|
0.252
|
79.9
|
0.007
|
1
|
0.439
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asian
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WW VS ww
|
2
|
0.881[ 0.354 -2.190]
|
0.27
|
0.784
|
0
|
0.994
|
|
|
WW VS Ww
|
2
|
1.841[ 0.693 -4.894]
|
1.22
|
0.221
|
0
|
0.54
|
|
|
WW VS Ww/ ww
|
2
|
1.669[ 0.647 -4.303]
|
1.06
|
0.289
|
0
|
0.543
|
|
|
ww VS WW/ Ww
|
2
|
2.019[ 1.242 -3.283]
|
2.84
|
0.005
|
9.9
|
0.292
|
|
|
Ww VS WW/ ww
|
2
|
0.437[ 0.281 -0.680]
|
3.67
|
0
|
0
|
0.343
|
|
|
W VS w
|
2
|
0.618[ 0.438 -0.872]
|
2.74
|
0.006
|
0
|
0.425
|
|
|
Note: homozygote model,WW vs. ww, heterozygous model, WW vs. Ww, dominant model, WW vs. Ww/ ww, recessive model, ww vs. WW/ Ww, over-dominant model, Ww vs. WW/ww, allele genetic model, W vs. W, OR, odds ratio, CI, confidence interval.
Table.4 Results of the association between Tap-1 polymorphism and BPH risk in different ethnicities
|
|
Studies
|
Overall effect
|
Heterogeneity
|
Public bias
|
Comparison
|
OR (95%CI)
|
Z-score
|
p-value
|
I2(%)
|
P-value
|
Begg's test
|
Egger'stest
|
whole
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WW VS ww
|
7
|
2.103 [1.384 -3.196]
|
3.48
|
0
|
0
|
0.958
|
0.368
|
0.413
|
WW VS Ww
|
7
|
1.562 [1.207-2.021]
|
3.39
|
0.001
|
27.8
|
0.216
|
1
|
0.461
|
WW VS Ww/ ww
|
7
|
1.673[1.312-2.133]
|
4.15
|
0
|
8.6
|
0.363
|
0.548
|
0.374
|
ww VS WW/ Ww
|
7
|
0.558[0.392-0.795]
|
3.24
|
0.001
|
0
|
0.451
|
0.764
|
0.868
|
Ww VS WW/ ww
|
7
|
0.760[0.488-1.183]
|
1.22
|
0.224
|
68.2
|
0.004
|
0.23
|
0.46
|
W VS w
|
7
|
1.443[1.205-1.730]
|
3.98
|
0
|
21.1
|
0.269
|
0.23
|
0.522
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Caucasian
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WW VS ww
|
4
|
2.002 [1.276-3.141]
|
3.02
|
0.003
|
0
|
0.801
|
0.734
|
0.482
|
WW VS Ww
|
4
|
1.674 [1.188-2.360]
|
2.94
|
0.003
|
0
|
0.466
|
1
|
0.804
|
WW VS Ww/ ww
|
4
|
1.800 [1.310-2.475]
|
3.62
|
0
|
0
|
0.929
|
1
|
0.837
|
ww VS WW/ Ww
|
4
|
0.577 [0.398-0.837]
|
2.9
|
0.004
|
41.8
|
0.161
|
0.734
|
0.065
|
Ww VS WW/ ww
|
4
|
0.861 [0.448-1.653]
|
0.45
|
0.652
|
77.8
|
0.004
|
0.734
|
0.956
|
W VS w
|
4
|
1.419[1.145-1.758]
|
3.2
|
0.001
|
0
|
0.483
|
0.734
|
0.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asian
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WW VS ww
|
3
|
2.857[0.908 -8.987]
|
1.8
|
0.073
|
0
|
0.897
|
0.296
|
0.111
|
WW VS Ww
|
3
|
1.427[0.965 -2.109]
|
1.78
|
0.075
|
62.9
|
0.068
|
1
|
0.423
|
WW VS Ww/ ww
|
3
|
1.507[1.033 -2.199]
|
2.13
|
0.033
|
64.3
|
0.061
|
1
|
0.436
|
ww VS WW/ Ww
|
3
|
0.414[0.133 -1.294]
|
1.52
|
0.129
|
0
|
0.853
|
0.296
|
0.056
|
Ww VS WW/ ww
|
3
|
0.626[0.310 -1.265]
|
1.31
|
0.192
|
59.9
|
0.082
|
1
|
0.425
|
W VS w
|
3
|
1.507[ 1.075 -2.112]
|
2.38
|
0.017
|
60.6
|
0.079
|
1
|
0.438
|
Note: homozygote model,WW vs. ww, heterozygous model, WW vs. Ww, dominant model, WW vs. Ww/ ww, recessive model, ww vs. WW/ Ww, over-dominant model, Ww vs. WW/ ww, allele genetic model, W vs. W, OR, odds ratio, CI, confidence interval.
Table.5 Results of the association between Fok-1 polymorphism and BPH risk in different ethnicities
|
|
Studies
|
Overall effect
|
Heterogeneity
|
Public bias
|
Comparison
|
OR(95%CI)
|
Z-score
|
p-value
|
I2(%)
|
P-value
|
Begg's test
|
Egger'stest
|
whole
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WW VS ww
|
5
|
0.786 [0.546 -1.131]
|
1.3
|
0.194
|
39.7
|
0.156
|
0.462
|
0.301
|
WW VS Ww
|
5
|
0.918 [0.643-1.309]
|
0.48
|
0.635
|
58.6
|
0.047
|
1
|
0.884
|
WW VS Ww/ ww
|
5
|
0.908[0.449-1.219]
|
0.54
|
0.591
|
60.8
|
0.037
|
1
|
0.868
|
ww VS WW/ Ww
|
5
|
1.145[0.625-2.097]
|
0.44
|
0.661
|
61.5
|
0.034
|
0.462
|
0.437
|
Ww VS WW/ ww
|
5
|
1.142[0.814-1.602]
|
0.77
|
0.444
|
65.4
|
0.021
|
1
|
0.864
|
W VS w
|
5
|
1.057[0.732-1.524]
|
0.29
|
0.768
|
82.2
|
0
|
1
|
0.506
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Caucasian
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WW VS ww
|
3
|
0.670 [0.287-1.565]
|
0.93
|
0.355
|
0
|
0.856
|
0.296
|
0.002
|
WW VS Ww
|
3
|
0.956 [0.501-1.822]
|
0.14
|
0.89
|
53.4
|
0.17
|
0.296
|
0.014
|
WW VS Ww/ ww
|
3
|
1.068 [0.680-1.678]
|
0.29
|
0.775
|
22.9
|
0.273
|
0.296
|
0.138
|
ww VS WW/ Ww
|
3
|
0.841 [0.367-1.928]
|
0.41
|
0.682
|
35.8
|
0.211
|
0.296
|
0.131
|
Ww VS WW/ ww
|
3
|
1.158 [0.572-2.344]
|
0.41
|
0.684
|
76.4
|
0.014
|
1
|
0.403
|
W VS w
|
3
|
1.324 [0.899-1.951]
|
1.42
|
0.156
|
53.3
|
0.117
|
0.296
|
0.303
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asian
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WW VS ww
|
2
|
0.814[ 0.544 -1.219]
|
1
|
0.318
|
83.7
|
0.013
|
|
|
WW VS Ww
|
2
|
0.75 [ 0.544 -1.219]
|
0.75
|
0.452
|
67.7
|
0.07
|
|
|
WW VS Ww/ ww
|
2
|
0.824[ 0.492 -1.381]
|
0.73
|
0.463
|
79.2
|
0.028
|
|
|
ww VS WW/ Ww
|
2
|
1.551[ 0.518 -4.646]
|
0.78
|
0.433
|
80.9
|
0.022
|
|
|
Ww VS WW/ ww
|
2
|
1.173[ 0.824 -1.671]
|
0.89
|
0.376
|
59.9
|
0.114
|
|
|
W VS w
|
2
|
0.821[ 0.501 -1.347]
|
0.78
|
0.435
|
87.5
|
0.005
|
|
|
Note: homozygote model,WW vs. ww, heterozygous model, WW vs. Ww, dominant model, WW vs. Ww/ ww, recessive model, ww vs. WW/ Ww, over-dominant model, Ww vs. WW/ ww, allele genetic model, W vs. W, OR, odds ratio, CI, confidence interval.