Titre : | How should we use information about HWE in the meta-analyses of genetic association studies ? (2008) |
Auteurs : | MINELLI (Cosetta) : GBR. Respiratory Epidemiology and Public Health Group. National Heart and Lung Institute. Imperial College London. London. ; Keith-R ABRAMS ; John ATTIA ; THAKKINSTIAN (Ammarin) : THA. Clinical Epidemiology Unit. Mahidol University. Bangkok. ; John-R THOMPSON ; Centre for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics. University of Newcastle. Newcastle. AUS ; Department of Health Sciences. Centre for Biostatistics and Genetic Epidemiology. University of Leicester. Leicester. GBR |
Type de document : | Article |
Dans : | International journal of epidemiology (vol. 37, n° 1, 2008) |
Pagination : | 136-146 |
Langues: | Anglais |
Mots-clés : | Pathologie ; Génétique ; Epidémiologie ; Homme |
Résumé : | [BDSP. Notice produite par INIST-CNRS wOqR0xZ8. Diffusion soumise à autorisation]. Background It is often recommended that control groups in meta-analyses of genetic association studies are checked for Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (HWE) as a surrogate for assessing study quality. However, tests for HWE have low power and there is currently no consensus about how to handle studies that deviate significantly from HWE. Methods We identified 72 papers describing 114 meta-analyses of 1603 primary gene-disease comparisons. Based on these studies and on related simulations, we evaluated four different strategies for handling studies that appear not to be in HWE : (i) include them in the meta-analysis ; (ii) exclude them if the test for HWE results in P |