Athological type, detecting sample, genotype method, allele and genotype frequencies, and evidence of Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (HWE) in controls. In case of conflicting evaluations, disagreements were resolved through discussion between the authors.Quality Assessment of Included StudiesTwo authors independently assessed the quality of papers according to modified Itacitinib site STROBE quality score systems [31,32]. Forty assessment items related to the quality appraisal were used in this meta-analysis with scores ranging from 0 to 40. Scores of 0?20, 20?0 and 30?0 were defined as 11967625 low, moderate and high quality, respectively. Disagreements were also resolved through discussion between the authors. The supporting modified STROBE quality score systems is available in Supplement S2.Inclusion and Exclusion CriteriaStudies included in our meta-analysis have to meet the following criteria: (a) case-control study or cohort study focused on associations between survivin 231G.C polymorphism and GIT cancer susceptibility; (b) all patients diagnosed with GIT cancers should be confirmed by pathological or histological examinations; (c) published data about the size of the odds ratio (OR), and their 95 confidence interval (CI) must be sufficient. Studies were excluded when they were: (a) not a case-control study or a cohort study; (b) duplicates of previous publications; (c) based on incomplete data; (d) meta-analyses, letters, reviews or editorial articles. If more than one study by the same author using the same case series was published, either the studies with the largest sampleStatistical AnalysisThe strength of the association between survivin 231G.C polymorphism and GIT cancer susceptibility was measured by ORs with 95 CIs under five genetic models, including allele model (C vs. G), dominant model (CC+GC vs. GG), recessive model (CC vs. GG+GC), homozygous model (CC vs. GG), andSurvivin Gene and Gastrointestinal Tract CancerRef = reference; HB = hospital-based; PB = population-based; PCR-RELP = polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism; PCR-SSCP = polymerase chain reaction-single strand conformation polymorphism; SNP = single nucleotide polymorphism. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0054081.theterozygous model (CC vs. GC). The statistical significance of the pooled OR was examined by Z test. Between-study variations and heterogeneities were estimated using Cochran’s Q-statistic with a P-value ,0.05 as statistically significant heterogeneity [33]. We also quantified the effect of heterogeneity by using I2 test (ranges from 0 to 100 ), which represents the order 94361-06-5 proportion of inter-study variability that can be contributed to heterogeneity rather than by chance [34]. When a significant Q-test (P,0.05) or I2.50 indicated that heterogeneity among studies existed, the random effects model (DerSimonian Laird method) was conducted for meta-analysis. Otherwise, the fixed effects model (MantelHaenszel method) was used. To establish the effect of heterogeneity based on the results from the meta-analyses, we also performed subgroup analysis by cancer types, ethnicity, country, source of controls and genotype methods. We tested whether genotype frequencies of controls were in HWE using the x2 test. Sensitivity was performed by omitting each study in turn 26001275 to assess the quality and consistency of the results. Begger’s funnel plots were used to detect publication biases. In addition, Egger’s linear regression test which measures funnel plot asymmetry using a.Athological type, detecting sample, genotype method, allele and genotype frequencies, and evidence of Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (HWE) in controls. In case of conflicting evaluations, disagreements were resolved through discussion between the authors.Quality Assessment of Included StudiesTwo authors independently assessed the quality of papers according to modified STROBE quality score systems [31,32]. Forty assessment items related to the quality appraisal were used in this meta-analysis with scores ranging from 0 to 40. Scores of 0?20, 20?0 and 30?0 were defined as 11967625 low, moderate and high quality, respectively. Disagreements were also resolved through discussion between the authors. The supporting modified STROBE quality score systems is available in Supplement S2.Inclusion and Exclusion CriteriaStudies included in our meta-analysis have to meet the following criteria: (a) case-control study or cohort study focused on associations between survivin 231G.C polymorphism and GIT cancer susceptibility; (b) all patients diagnosed with GIT cancers should be confirmed by pathological or histological examinations; (c) published data about the size of the odds ratio (OR), and their 95 confidence interval (CI) must be sufficient. Studies were excluded when they were: (a) not a case-control study or a cohort study; (b) duplicates of previous publications; (c) based on incomplete data; (d) meta-analyses, letters, reviews or editorial articles. If more than one study by the same author using the same case series was published, either the studies with the largest sampleStatistical AnalysisThe strength of the association between survivin 231G.C polymorphism and GIT cancer susceptibility was measured by ORs with 95 CIs under five genetic models, including allele model (C vs. G), dominant model (CC+GC vs. GG), recessive model (CC vs. GG+GC), homozygous model (CC vs. GG), andSurvivin Gene and Gastrointestinal Tract CancerRef = reference; HB = hospital-based; PB = population-based; PCR-RELP = polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism; PCR-SSCP = polymerase chain reaction-single strand conformation polymorphism; SNP = single nucleotide polymorphism. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0054081.theterozygous model (CC vs. GC). The statistical significance of the pooled OR was examined by Z test. Between-study variations and heterogeneities were estimated using Cochran’s Q-statistic with a P-value ,0.05 as statistically significant heterogeneity [33]. We also quantified the effect of heterogeneity by using I2 test (ranges from 0 to 100 ), which represents the proportion of inter-study variability that can be contributed to heterogeneity rather than by chance [34]. When a significant Q-test (P,0.05) or I2.50 indicated that heterogeneity among studies existed, the random effects model (DerSimonian Laird method) was conducted for meta-analysis. Otherwise, the fixed effects model (MantelHaenszel method) was used. To establish the effect of heterogeneity based on the results from the meta-analyses, we also performed subgroup analysis by cancer types, ethnicity, country, source of controls and genotype methods. We tested whether genotype frequencies of controls were in HWE using the x2 test. Sensitivity was performed by omitting each study in turn 26001275 to assess the quality and consistency of the results. Begger’s funnel plots were used to detect publication biases. In addition, Egger’s linear regression test which measures funnel plot asymmetry using a.