| Title |
Significant association of BDNF rs6265 G>A polymorphism with susceptibility to epilepsy: a meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ndt.s154927 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yue-Long Xu, Xiu-Xiu Li, Su-Jing Zhuang, Shi-Feng Guo, Jian-Ping Xiang, Long Wang, Lan Zhou, Bin Wu |
| Abstract |
Previously published articles have suggested that BDNF rs6265 G>A polymorphism is a potential risk factor for epilepsy. However, the results were not consistent. We conducted a meta-analysis to explore the association between BDNF rs6265 G>A polymorphism and epilepsy risk. Four online databases were searched, and related studies were reviewed from their inception up to June 20, 2017. ORs and corresponding 95% CIs were used to calculate the associations of each genetic model. Overall, 10 case-control publications involving 9,512 subjects were included in this meta-analysis. Significant associations were found between BDNF rs6265 G>A polymorphism and epilepsy (A vs G: OR=0.88, 95% CI=0.83-0.94, P<0.01, I2=0%; GA vs GG: OR=0.88, 95% CI=0.79-0.97, P=0.01, I2=0%; AA vs GG: OR=0.79, 95% CI=0.70-0.90, P<0.01, I2=0%; GA+AA vs GG: OR=0.85, 95% CI=0.77-0.94, P<0.01, I2=0%; AA vs GG+GA: OR=0.85, 95% CI=0.76-0.95, P=0.01, I2=0%). Subgroup analysis also showed similar results in an Asian population. Our meta-analysis indicated that BDNF rs6265 G>A polymorphism might be involved in epilepsy susceptibility, especially in the Asian population. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 14 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 4 | 29% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 21% |
| Researcher | 2 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 2 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 4 | 29% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 14% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 2 | 14% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 April 2018.
All research outputs
#16,728,456
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#1,719
of 3,131 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#210,933
of 343,807 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#38
of 77 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,131 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 343,807 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 77 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.