PLoS medicine · 2012
Homocysteine and coronary heart disease: meta-analysis of MTHFR case-control studies, avoiding publication bias.
СтатьяМетаанализПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Clarke Robert, Bennett Derrick A, Parish Sarah, Verhoef Petra, Dötsch-Klerk Mariska, Lathrop Mark, Xu Peng, Nordestgaard Børge G, Holm Hilma, Hopewell Jemma C, Saleheen Danish, Tanaka Toshihiro, Anand Sonia S, Chambers John C, Kleber Marcus E, Ouwehand Willem H, Yamada Yoshiji, Elbers Clara, Peters Bas, Stewart Alexandre F R, Reilly Muredach M, Thorand Barbara, Yusuf Salim, Engert James C, Assimes Themistocles L, Kooner Jaspal, Danesh John, Watkins Hugh, Samani Nilesh J, Collins Rory, Peto Richard, MTHFR Studies Collaborative Group
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Moderately elevated blood levels of homocysteine are weakly correlated with coronary heart disease (CHD) risk, but causality remains uncertain. When folate levels are low, the TT genotype of the common C677T polymorphism (rs1801133) of the methylene tetrahydrofolate reductase gene (MTHFR) appreciably increases homocysteine levels, so "Mendelian randomization" studies using this variant as an instrumental variable could help test causality.
METHODS AND FINDINGS: Nineteen unpublished datasets were obtained (total 48,175 CHD cases and 67,961 controls) in which multiple genetic variants had been measured, including MTHFR C677T. These datasets did not include measurements of blood homocysteine, but homocysteine levels would be expected to be about 20% higher with TT than with CC genotype in the populations studied. In meta-analyses of these unpublished datasets, the case-control CHD odds ratio (OR) and 95% CI comparing TT versus CC homozygotes was 1.02 (0.98-1.07; p = 0.28) overall, and 1.01 (0.95-1.07) in unsupplemented low-folate populations. By contrast, in a slightly updated meta-analysis of the 86 published studies (28,617 CHD cases and 41,857 controls), the OR was 1.15 (1.09-1.21), significantly discrepant (p = 0.001) with the OR in the unpublished datasets. Within the meta-analysis of published studies, the OR was 1.12 (1.04-1.21) in the 14 larger studies (those with variance of log OR<0.05; total 13,119 cases) and 1.18 (1.09-1.28) in the 72 smaller ones (total 15,498 cases).
CONCLUSIONS: The CI for the overall result from large unpublished datasets shows lifelong moderate homocysteine elevation has little or no effect on CHD. The discrepant overall result from previously published studies reflects publication bias or methodological problems.
METHODS AND FINDINGS: Nineteen unpublished datasets were obtained (total 48,175 CHD cases and 67,961 controls) in which multiple genetic variants had been measured, including MTHFR C677T. These datasets did not include measurements of blood homocysteine, but homocysteine levels would be expected to be about 20% higher with TT than with CC genotype in the populations studied. In meta-analyses of these unpublished datasets, the case-control CHD odds ratio (OR) and 95% CI comparing TT versus CC homozygotes was 1.02 (0.98-1.07; p = 0.28) overall, and 1.01 (0.95-1.07) in unsupplemented low-folate populations. By contrast, in a slightly updated meta-analysis of the 86 published studies (28,617 CHD cases and 41,857 controls), the OR was 1.15 (1.09-1.21), significantly discrepant (p = 0.001) with the OR in the unpublished datasets. Within the meta-analysis of published studies, the OR was 1.12 (1.04-1.21) in the 14 larger studies (those with variance of log OR<0.05; total 13,119 cases) and 1.18 (1.09-1.28) in the 72 smaller ones (total 15,498 cases).
CONCLUSIONS: The CI for the overall result from large unpublished datasets shows lifelong moderate homocysteine elevation has little or no effect on CHD. The discrepant overall result from previously published studies reflects publication bias or methodological problems.