Skip to main content

Table 2 Characteristics of association studies eligible for inclusion

From: The influence of psychiatric screening in healthy populations selection: a new study and meta-analysis of functional 5-HTTLPR and rs25531 polymorphisms and anxiety-related personality traits

Study Year Inventorya N % Male Mean Age Ethnicity HW equilibrium HW χ2 HW p Exclusion
Lesch 1996 NEO 505 92 37.6 94% Caucasian YES 0.01 0.93  
Ebstein 1997 TCI 121 55 29.7 74% Caucasian YES 1.14 0.29  
Nakamura 1997 Both 186 0 19.6 Asian YES 1.15 0.28  
Mazzanti 1998 TCI 215 85 35.5 Caucasian YES 0.01 0.98  
Ricketts 1998 TCI 37 nd nd Caucasian YES 2.10 0.15  
Flory 1999 NEO 225 50 45.7 84% Caucasian YES 0.16 0.69  
Hamer 1999 TCI 634 43 31.3 79% Caucasian NO 3.85 0.04 Excludedb
Katsuragi 1999 TCI 101 61 25.0 Asian YES 0.02 0.88  
Kumakiri 1999 Both 144 42 24.4 Asian YES 1.28 0.26  
Benjamin 2000 TCI 455 40 nd Caucasian N/A    Excludedd
Comings 2000 TCI 81 100 32.9 Caucasian YES 0.10 0.75  
Du 2000 NEO 186 41 36.3 Caucasian YES 0.77 0.38  
Greenberg 2000 NEO 397 16 28.6 Caucasian NO 4.75 0.03 Excludedb
Herbst 2000 TCI 425 51 43.8 67% Caucasian YES 0.79 0.38  
Hu 2000 NEO 759 62 29.2 81% Caucasian YES 1.57 0.21  
Osher 2000 Both 148 34 30.7 Caucasian YES 0.11 0.75  
Schmidt 2000 NEO 72 48 27.0 54% Caucasian YES 0.06 0.80 Excludedc
Samochowiec 2001 TCI 126 30 23.8 Caucasian YES 1.26 0.26  
Cohen 2002 TCI 559 0 nd Caucasian NO 9.51 0.01 Excludedb
Tsai 2002 TCI 192 49 29.3 Asian YES 2.30 0.13  
Brummett 2003 NEO 99 32 70.3 87% Caucasian YES 0.70 0.40  
Umekage 2003 NEO 244 8 37.7 Asian YES 2.08 0.15  
Ham 2004 TCI 146 32 31.9 Asian YES 0.01 0.98  
Jacob 2004 Both 281 25 22.4 Caucasian YES 0.59 0.44  
Lang 2004 NEO 228 50 38.6 Caucasian YES 1.14 0.29  
Park 2004 TCI 100 0 48.3 Asian YES 2.41 0.12 Excludedd
Samochowiec 2004 Both 100 47 41.0 Caucasian YES 0.04 0.85  
Szekely 2004 TCI 151 43 22.2 Caucasian YES 0.59 0.44  
Thierry 2004 TCI 76 0 32.8 Caucasian YES 0.01 0.96 Excludedd
Sen 2004 NEO 415 33 43.8 Caucasian NO 3.76 0.05 Excludedb
Bachner-Melman 2005 TCI 872 nd 21.4 N/A N/A    Excludedc,d
Hariri 2005 TCI 92 49 30.5 Caucasian N/A    Excludedd
Kim 2005 TCI 211 51 26.5 Asian YES 0.06 0.81 Excludedd
Kremer 2005 TCI 730 nd nd N/A N/A    Excludedc,d
Dragan 2006 NEO 196 0 21.7 Caucasian YES 2.07 0.15  
Lazagorta 2006 TCI 57 nd 45 Other YES 3.70 0.05 Excludedb,c
Monteleone 2006 TCI 94 0 nd Caucasian YES 2.37 0.12  
Serretti 2006 TCI 132 nd nd Caucasian YES 0.02 0.90  
Vorfelde 2006 Both 195 50 nd Caucasian YES 0.48 0.49  
Hunnerkopf 2007 NEO 272 25 21.9 Caucasian N/A    Excludedd
Joo 2007 TCI 158 44 23.8 Asian YES 0.13 0.72  
Nilsson 2007 TCI 196 60 17 Caucasian YES 1.07 0.30  
Schmitz 2007 Both 410 36 24 Caucasian YES 0.07 0.78  
Stein 2008 NEO 247 31 18.8 61% Caucasian NO 3.88 0.05 Excludedb
Lee 2008 TCI 75 100 16.1 Asian YES 2.97 0.08 Excludedd
Kazantseva 2008 TCI 301 20 19.8 Caucasian YES 1.24 0.26  
Suzuki 2008 TCI 575 51 28.7 Asian YES 0.14 0.71  
Munafò 2009 TCI 3872 44 42 Caucasian YES 0.26 0.61  
Gonda 2009 TCI 169 0 nd Caucasian YES 0.20 0.65  
Terraccianoe 2009 NEO 3972 43 42.5 Caucasian YES 1.33 0.25  
Terraccianof 2009 NEO 1182 52 57.3 71% Caucasian YES 0.87 0.35  
Saiz 2010 TCI 404 50 40.5 Caucasian YES 0.76 0.38  
Present Study   TCI 229 45 49.2 Caucasian YES 0.33 0.56  
  1. HW = Hardy-Weinberg; HW χ2 = Hardy-Weinberg chi square; HW p = Hardy-Weinberg p value; nd = not determined; N/A = not applicable.
  2. a The term NEO referred to all versions (i.e. NEO-PI, NEO-PI-R, NEO-FFI); the term TCI referred to all versions (TPQ).
  3. b Excluded because genotype frequencies showed deviation from Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium.
  4. c Excluded due to the ethnic heterogeneity or lack of data about ethnic origin.
  5. d Excluded because of unavailable data.
  6. e Data referred to SardiNIA sample.
  7. f Data referred to BLSA (Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging) sample.