Skip to main content

Table 1 Meta-analyses results of genetic variants with statistically significance (P-value< 0.05) from observational studies

From: Genetic variants in migraine: a field synopsis and systematic re-analysis of meta-analyses

Author, yearGene/variantComparisonOR (95%CI)P-ValueEthnicityNo. of cases/controlsFPRP Values at Prior probabilityBFDP 0.05BFDP 0.001Venice criteriaVenice criteria score
OR 1.2OR 1.5
0.050.0010.050.001
Liu L, 2019 [48]MTHFR/rs1801133T vs. C1.19 (1.06–1.33)0.004Overall 26 (Caucasian 20, Asian 6)10,228/286080.0690.7950.0400.6850.4760.980A + C + CLow
Liu L, 2019 [48]MTHFR/rs1801133TT vs. CT + CC1.29 (1.06–1.56)0.010Overall 26 (Caucasian 20, Asian 6)10,228/286080.4190.9740.1490.9020.7260.993A + C + CLow
Liu L, 2019 [48]MTHFR/rs1801133TT + CT vs. CC1.17 (1.02–1.35)0.027Overall 26 (Caucasian 20, Asian 6)10,228/286080.4850.9800.3750.9690.8800.997A + C + CLow
Liu L, 2019 [48]MTHFR/rs1801133TT vs. CC1.32 (1.07–1.64)0.011Overall 26 (Caucasian 20, Asian 6)10,228/286080.5430.9840.2090.9330.7780.995A + C + CLow
Liu L, 2019 [48]MTHFR/rs1801131CC vs. AC + AA1.82 (1.09–3.04)0.022Overall 5 (Caucasian 4, Asian 1)1368/14110.8830.9980.6470.9900.8990.998A + C + CLow
Liu L, 2019 [48]MTHFR/rs1801131CC vs. AA1.78 (1.03–3.07)0.038Overall 5 (Caucasian 4, Asian 1)1368/14110.9030.9980.7290.9930.9170.998A + C + CLow
Gao X, 2018 [47]GRIA1/rs2195450CT vs. CC1.23 (1.02–1.48)0.03Overall 4 (Caucasian 3, Asian 1)963/11670.5760.9860.3540.9660.8620.997A + B + AIntermediate
Terrazzino S, 2017 [44]BDNF/rs6265A vs. G1.17 (1.03–1.34)0.014Overall 5 (Caucasian 5)2884/37600.4080.9730.3070.9590.8560.997A + A + AHigh
Terrazzino S, 2017 [44]BDNF/rs6265AA + GA vs. GG1.22 (1.05–1.41)0.011Overall 5 (Caucasian 5)2884/37600.2470.9450.1190.8770.6940.992A + A + AHigh
Cai X, 2017 [42]BDNF/rs2049046A vs. T0.88 (0.79–0.98)0.02Overall 4 (Caucasian 4)1260/13800.3110.9600.2750.9520.8550.997A + A + CLow
Cai X, 2017 [42]BDNF/rs2049046AA vs. TA + TT0.80 (0.67–0.96)0.02Overall 4 (Caucasian 4)1260/13800.4860.9800.2430.9440.8090.996A + A + AHigh
Cai X, 2017 [42]BDNF/rs2049046AA vs. TT0.78 (0.62–0.97)0.02Overall 4 (Caucasian 4)1260/13800.6370.9890.3450.9650.8530.997A + A + AHigh
Cai X, 2017 [42]BDNF/rs2049046AA vs. TA0.81 (0.67–0.99)0.03Overall 4 (Caucasian 4)1260/13800.6580.9900.4360.9760.8870.998A + A + AHigh
Li L, 2015 [37]ESR1/rs1801132GG vs. CC1.51 (1.15–1.99)0.003Overall 5 (Caucasian 4, Asian 1)2027/19190.5590.9850.1190.8770.6440.990A + A + AHigh
Li L, 2015 [37]ESR1/rs1801132GG vs. CG + CC1.52 (1.16–1.98)0.002Overall 5 (Caucasian 4, Asian 1)2027/19190.4770.9800.0730.8050.5420.984A + B + AIntermediate
Li L, 2015 [37]ESR1/rs2228480AG vs. GG1.14 (1.01–1.28)0.030Overall 6 (Caucasian 5, Asian 1)2293/20260.3850.9710.3360.9640.8770.997A + A + AHigh
Li L, 2015 [37]ESR1/rs2228480AA + AG vs. GG1.13 (1.00–1.26)0.003Overall 6 (Caucasian 5, Asian 1)2293/20260.3810.9700.3460.9650.8850.998A + B + AIntermediate
Liu H, 2011 [23]5-HTT/VNTRStin2.12 allele1.34 (1.09–1.64)0.006Overall 4 (Caucasian 3, Asian1)495/7290.3770.9700.0900.8400.6280.989A + A + NANA
Liu H, 2011 [23]5-HTT/VNTR12/12 genotype1.55 (1.17–2.05)0.002Overall 4 (Caucasian 3, Asian1)495/7290.5260.9830.0900.8380.5570.986A + A + NANA
  1. OR odds radio, CI confidence interval, FPRP false-positive rate probability, BFDP Bayesian false discovery probability, NA not available
\