| Literature DB >> 35711531 |
Jing Dong1, Jie Li1, Ling Yang1, Qiuhong Kong1, Zhirong Zhang1, Hong Zhang1.
Abstract
This study systematically reviewed the effect of DNA methylation in the promoter region of the coagulation factor vWF gene on the risk of unexplained recurrent hemophilia. PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, and other computers were used to search the database, and the statistical randomized controlled trials of coagulation factor vWF in the risk analysis of unknown recurrent hemophilia were collected. The Cochrane systematic evaluation method was used to evaluate the quality of the included kinds of literature, and Revman5 software was used to sort out and analyze the kinds of literature. Meta-analysis showed that there was a statistical difference between the experimental group and the control group in case fatality rate (OR = 1.76, 95% CI (1.29, 2.39), P=0.0003, I 2 = 0%, Z = 3.58), adverse events (OR = 2.38, 95% CI (1.65, 3.45), P < 0.00001, I 2 = 0%, Z = 4.60), incidence of joint hemorrhage (OR = 2.52, 95% CI (1.62, 3.91), P < 0.00001, I 2 = 0%, Z = 4.12), incidence of subcutaneous stasis (OR = 1.76, 95% CI (1.26, 2.45), P=0.0009, I 2 = 5%, Z = 3.33), and hematoma volume (OR = 1.78, 95% CI (1.32, 2.40), P=0.0001, I 2 = 23%, Z = 3.80). DNA methylation in the promoter region of the coagulation factor vWF gene was significantly associated with the risk of unexplained recurrent hemophilia. Whether demethylation can improve the bleeding index of patients with recurrent hemophilia remains to be further explored.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35711531 PMCID: PMC9187466 DOI: 10.1155/2022/3977289
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Contrast Media Mol Imaging ISSN: 1555-4309 Impact factor: 3.009
Figure 1Flowchart of the literature screening.
Figure 2Literature quality evaluation chart. (a) Risk of bias graph and (b) risk of bias summary.
Figure 3(a–d) Funnel plot of literature publication bias.
Basic clinical features of 12 kinds of literature were included in our study.
| Study | Age | Gender (male) (%) | Result indicators | Experimental group | Control group | NOS score | Research type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Van Moort et al. 2020 [ | 55.71 ± 1.2 | 41.25 | Case fatality rate, adverse events, etc. | 42/59 | 32/59 | 7 | RCT |
| Neufeld et al. 2018 [ | 57.65 ± 3.4 | 59.12 | Case fatality rate, adverse events, etc. | 56/78 | 45/78 | 9 | RCT |
| Lalezari et al. 2014 [ | 43.12 ± 4.5 | 45.72 | Case fatality rate, adverse events, etc. | 48/63 | 42/68 | 8 | RCT |
| Kessler et al. 2011 [ | 17.15 ± 4.5 | 44.12 | Case fatality rate, adverse events, etc. | 107/120 | 89/120 | 8 | RCT |
| Gill et al. 2015 [ | 42.85 ± 8.4 | 51.89 | Case fatality rate, adverse events, etc. | 122/192 | 105/192 | 8 | RCT |
| Mannucci et al. 2013 [ | 64.36 ± 1.2 | 53.45 | Case fatality rate, adverse events, etc. | 28/32 | 22/32 | 7 | RCT |
| Skotnicki et al. 2016 [ | 32.62 ± 2.2 | 58.10 | Case fatality rate, adverse events, etc. | 48/65 | 40/65 | 9 | RCT |
| Mannucci et al. 1992 [ | 42.61 ± 3.0 | 48.75 | Case fatality rate, adverse events, etc. | 15/18 | 12/18 | 9 | RCT |
| Nemes et al. 2007 [ | 57.25 ± 4.5 | 59.23 | Case fatality rate, adverse events, etc. | 600/623 | 567/623 | 7 | RCT |
| Lethagen et al. 2000 [ | 46.22 ± 5.2 | 56.22 | Case fatality rate, adverse events, etc. | 25/30 | 23/30 | 7 | RCT |
| Peyvandi et al. 2019 [ | 51.35 ± 2.1 | 43.16 | Case fatality rate, adverse events, etc. | 48/52 | 125/172 | 8 | RCT |
| Tosetto et al. 2000 [ | 51.25 ± 1.1 | 46.34 | Case fatality rate, adverse events, etc. | 28/32 | 21/32 | 8 | RCT |
Figure 4Meta-analysis of case fatality rate between the two groups.
Figure 5Meta-analysis of adverse events between the two groups.
Figure 6Meta-analysis of the incidence of joint hemorrhage between the two groups.
Figure 7Meta-analysis of the incidence of subcutaneous stasis between the two groups.
Figure 8Meta-analysis of hematoma volume between the two groups.