Key result
The C allele of KCNQ1 polymorphisms rs2237892 and rs2237895 was associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus (OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.27-1.32, P<0.001 for rs2237892).
Why the study?
Does KCNQ1 gene polymorphism increase the risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus?
Meta-Analysis (n=120,835)
Does KCNQ1 gene polymorphism increase the risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus?
Odds Ratio: 1.29 (95% CI 1.27–1.32)
p-value: p=<0.001
The rs2237892 and rs2237895 polymorphisms in the KCNQ1 gene are significantly associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus.
May inform T2DM genetic risk models; confirms KCNQ1 variants as susceptibility loci.
A meta-analysis is performed by Stata software for evaluating the relationship between rs2237892，rs2237895 polymorphism in KCNQ1 and type2 diabetes mellitus(T2DM). The Forest plot is estimate the association between T2DM and KCNQ1 Gene polymorphism, and the heterogeneity, Funnel plot as well as Egger’s regression tests for publishing bias are assessed through Stata12.0 software. In our meta-analysis, there are 40 articles related rs2237892 included, 61757 T2DM patients and 59078 controls involved; 21 articles on rs2237985 is selected, including 42594 T2DM patients and 45306 controls. The distribution frequency of C allele of rs2237892 and rs2237895 in T2DM are obvious higher than control, combine OR（95%CI）are 1.29(1.27-1.32) and 1.24(1.22-1.27)，showing remarkable statistical significance (z=24.29, P＜0.001; z=20.14, P＜0.001). The rs2237892 and rs2237895 polymorphism in KCNQ1 would increase risk of T2DM.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Huang et al. (2018) conducted a meta-analysis in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (n=120,835). KCNQ1 gene polymorphism (rs2237892 and rs2237895) vs. Controls was evaluated on Type 2 diabetes mellitus (OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.27-1.32, p=<0.001). The C allele of KCNQ1 polymorphisms rs2237892 and rs2237895 was associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus (OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.27-1.32, P<0.001 for rs2237892).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: