Results of meta-analysis for <i>IGFBP3</i> A-202C/Gly32Ala polymorphism and colorectal cancer.

<p><i>P_h P</i> value of Q test for heterogeneity.</p

Meta-Analysis of the Association between Insulin-Like Growth Factor Binding Protein 3 Genetic Polymorphisms and Colorectal Cancer Susceptibility

<div><p>Insulin-like growth factor binding protein 3 (IGFBP-3) plays an important role in the development and progress of cancers. The association between <i>IGFBP-3</i> polymorphisms and colorectal cancer remains controversial and ambiguous. The aim of this study is to explore the association between <i>IGFBP3</i> A-202C and Gly32Ala polymorphisms and colorectal cancer susceptibility using meta-analyisi. Case-control studies on the association between <i>IGFBP3</i> A-202C and Gly32Ala polymorphisms and colorectal cancer, which had sufficient data for estimating an odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI), were included in the meta-analysis. Abstracts, case reports, editorials, and review articles were excluded. Heterozygous and homozygous mutants were compared with the wild types to estimate combined <i>OR</i> values and 95%<i>CIs</i> with Review Manager 5.0. Six eligible studies were included, with 3157 patients and 6027 controls for A-202C and 1711 patients and 2995 controls for Gly32Ala. No significant association was found in all genetic models (for A-202C, AC vs. AA, OR = 0.99(0.88–1.11), CC vs. AA, OR = 1.06(0.92–1.22), dominant model, OR = 0.98(0.88–1.09), recessive model, OR = 0.94(0.84–1.05); and for Gly32Ala polymorphism, GC vs. GG, OR = 1.10(0.92–1.31), CC vs. GG, OR = 0.93(0.76–1.14), dominant model, OR = 1.05(0.89–1.24), recessive model, OR = 0.90(0.77–1.05)). The results suggest that the <i>IGFBP3</i> A-202C and Gly32Ala polymorphisms are not associated with colorectal cancer susceptibility.</p> </div

Funnel plots of IGFBP3 A-202C and Gly32Ala polymorphism and colorectal cancer risk.

<p>Part A, model: A-202C (AC Vs AA), <i>t </i>_{eager’s test} = 1.45, P_{eager’s test} = 0.28. Part B, model: Gly32Ala (GC Vs GG), <i>t </i>_{eager’s test} = 0.76, P_{eager’s test} = 0.35.</p

The process of identifying relevant studies is summarized.

<p>The process of identifying relevant studies is summarized.</p

Association of IGFBP3 A-202C and Gly32Ala polymorphisms with colorectal cancer risk.

<p>Each comparison was presented by the year of publication. Part A analyzed the comparison between IGFBP3 A-202C(AC vs. AA) and colorectal cancer, par B analyzed the comparison between Gly32Ala polymorphism (GC vs. GG) and colorectal cancer.</p

Distribution of genotypes and alleles of IGFBP3 A-202C and Gly32Ala polymorphisms among cases and controls.

a<p>Type of control source: ‘PB’ for population based, ‘HB’ for hospital based.</p>b<p>Ethnicity: ‘C’ for Caucasian ancestry, ‘A’ for Asian ancestry.</p

Quality Assessment of TPB-Based Questionnaires: A Systematic Review

<div><p>Objective</p><p>This review is aimed at assessing the quality of questionnaires and their development process based on the theory of planned behavior (TPB) change model.</p><p>Methods</p><p>A systematic literature search for studies with the primary aim of TPB-based questionnaire development was conducted in relevant databases between 2002 and 2012 using selected search terms. Ten of 1,034 screened abstracts met the inclusion criteria and were assessed for methodological quality using two different appraisal tools: one for the overall methodological quality of each study and the other developed for the appraisal of the questionnaire content and development process. Both appraisal tools consisted of items regarding the likelihood of bias in each study and were eventually combined to give the overall quality score for each included study.</p><p>Results</p><p>8 of the 10 included studies showed low risk of bias in the overall quality assessment of each study, while 9 of the studies were of high quality based on the quality appraisal of questionnaire content and development process.</p><p>Conclusion</p><p>Quality appraisal of the questionnaires in the 10 reviewed studies was successfully conducted, highlighting the top problem areas (including: sample size estimation; inclusion of direct and indirect measures; and inclusion of questions on demographics) in the development of TPB-based questionnaires and the need for researchers to provide a more detailed account of their development process.</p></div

Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

<p>Inclusion and exclusion criteria.</p

Results of questionnaire quality appraisal.

<p>Results of questionnaire quality appraisal.</p

Quality appraisal criteria for questionnaire development.

<p><b>Notes</b>: Studies scoring ≥7 were considered ‘high quality’ (Grade A) while those <7 were rated ‘low quality’ (Grade B). Scoring adopted from Husebo <i>et al</i>. (2012) and Jack <i>et al</i>. (2010).</p