Table 2 Summary crude odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for dominant and recessive models for variants that were identified for meta-analysis with credibility factors in paediatric CD.

From: Systematic meta-analyses and field synopsis of genetic and epigenetic studies in paediatric inflammatory bowel disease

Gene/ Variant

Cases vs. controls (number of samples)

DOMINANT MODEL: wt/var & var/var VS. wt/wt

RECESSIVE MODEL: var/var vs. wt/wt & wt/var

N

Effect size

Heterogeneity

Credibility

N

Effect size

Heterogeneity

Credibility

 

OR (95% CI)

P value

I^2 (95% CI)

Power

BFDP1

Venice criteria grade

 

OR (95% CI)

P value

I^2 (95% CI)

Power

BFDP1

Venice criteria grade

NOD2/rs2066844

1984 vs. 4179 (16)

16

2.23 (1.88, 2.64)

4.77E-20

46 (2, 82)

1.00

0.000

ABB

12

4.14 (2.18, 7.89)

1.54E-05

0 (0, 49)

0.99

0.035

AAB

NOD2/rs2066845

2059 vs. 4274 (16)

16

3.21 (2.25, 4.60)

1.61E-10

53 (10, 84)

1.00

0.000

ACB

11

8.64 (2.80, 26.69)

1.77E-04

0 (0, 0)

1.00

0.465

AAB

NOD2/rs2066847

1980 vs. 4234 (16)

16

5.78 (3.67, 9.11)

4.12E-14

77 (58, 92)

1.00

0.000

ACB

10

91.00 (25.07, 330.27)

6.97E-12

0 (0, 57)

1.00

0.000

AAB

NOD2/rs5743289

376 vs. 687 (3)

3

1.48 (1.13, 1.94)

0.004

0 (0, 0)

0.83

0.640

AAB

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

IL23R/ rs11209026

1158 vs. 4766 (10)

10

0.32 (0.23, 0.43)

2.10E-13

0 (0, 50)

1.00

0.000

AAB

7

0.97 (0.31, 3.04)

0.952

0 (0, 32)

0.05

0.963

CAB

IL23R/rs7517847

496 vs. 1383 (4)

4

0.66 (0.53, 0.83)

3.13E-04

0 (0, 79)

0.95

0.180

AAB

4

0.57 (0.41, 0.79)

8.97E-04

49 (0, 94)

0.96

0.262

ABB

IBD5/rs11739135

536 vs. 722 (4)

4

1.24 (0.97, 1.59)

0.082

48 (0, 98)

0.41

0.956

CBB

4

1.41 (1.05, 1.89)

0.024

28 (0, 98)

0.63

0.862

BBB

IBD5/rs12521868

536 vs. 731 (4)

4

1.35 (1.05, 1.73)

0.018

0 (0, 95)

0.68

0.856

BAB

4

1.76 (1.31, 2.35)

1.55E-04

0 (0, 23)

0.97

0.072

AAB

IBD5/rs17622208

527 vs. 872 (3)

3

1.38 (1.05, 1.81)

0.020

51 (0, 92)

0.83

0.861

ACB

2

1.28 (0.92, 1.78)

0.140

0 (0, 0)

0.33

0.961

CAB

IBD5/rs1050152

757 vs. 1534 (7)

7

1.20 (0.98, 1.47)

0.072

0 (0, 76)

0.45

0.959

CAB

7

1.48 (1.17, 1.86)

9.91E-04

0 (0, 79)

0.93

0.293

AAB

IBD5/rs26313667

653 vs. 1117 (5)

5

1.40 (1.11, 1.77)

0.005

0 (0, 83)

0.82

0.675

AAB

5

1.42 (1.13, 1.78)

0.003

0 (0, 7)

0.87

0.527

AAB

ATG16L1/rs2241880

1360 vs. 6385 (12)

12

0.70 (0.62, 0.81)

3.14E-07

0 (0, 53)

1.00

0.002

AAB

12

0.73 (0.62, 0.87)

2.70E-04

0 (0, 51)

0.90

0.225

ACB

DLG5/rs1248696

427 vs. 846 (4)

4

0.79 (0.57, 1.09)

0.148

0 (0, 94)

0.34

0.961

CAB

4

0.56 (0.14, 2.26)

0.416

0 (0, 81)

0.12

0.955

CAB

DLG5/rs2289311

165 vs. 750 (3)

3

0.76 (0.53, 1.10)

0.151

19 (0, 98)

0.36

0.958

CAB

3

0.55 (0.29, 1.06)

0.075

0 (0, 97)

0.50

0.920

BAB

PSMG1/rs2836878

425 vs. 705 (3)

3

1.06 (0.83, 1.36)

0.623

43 (0, 98)

0.07

0.987

CBB

3

0.98 (0.33, 2.91)

0.971

67 (0, 99)

0.05

0.964

CCB

TNF-α/rs1800629

509 vs. 1443 (5)

5

1.98 (1.29, 3.03)

0.002

57 (0, 96)

1.00

0.415

ACB

4

3.79 (1.96, 7.32)

7.52E-05

0 (0, 95)

0.98

0.101

AAB

TNF-α/rs1799724

326 vs. 854 (3)

3

0.90 (0.67, 1.22)

0.501

47 (0, 99)

0.10

0.983

CBB

3

0.63 (0.28, 1.41)

0.259

0 (0, 95)

0.13

0.955

CAB

PTPN2/rs2542151

461 vs. 2152 (3)

3

1.05 (0.83, 1.33)

0.667

0 (0, 82)

0.07

0.988

CAB

3

1.77 (0.88, 3.55)

0.108

0 (0, 95)

0.42

0.934

CAB

TLR4/rs4986790

214 vs. 369 (3)

3

1.54 (0.92, 2.58)

0.100

20 (0, 97)

0.38

0.937

CAB

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

BSN-MST1/rs9858542

414 vs. 679 (3)

3

2.08 (1.62, 2.68)

1.00E-05

13 (0, 83)

1.00

0.030

AAB

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

  1. Venice criteria grade for the three criteria. The first grade is for the amount of evidence assessed according to statistical power (A, ≥80%; B, 50–79%; C, <50%); the second grade is for the extent of replication assessed according to heterogeneity (I2 value: A, <25%; B, 25–50%; C, >50%); the third grade is for protection from bias assessed according to small study effect (complete assessment of bias is difficult; no variants were graded as “A”; “B” was assigned for studies which no small study effect was detected; otherwise, “C” was assigned). Bayesian False Discovery Probability (BFDP) value were calculated at prior probability of 0.05. BFDP level of noteworthiness is 0.2.
Back to article page