Licochalcone-A Tudies were excluded for the reasons: about other genes methylation status without P16INK4A, duplicated publication, no appropriate outcome data, about cell lines, about animals, without proper controls. Finally, thirty-four studies [6?8,13?3] that reported data of methylation frequency in nonsmall-cell lung carcinoma tissue, and autologous controls were finally pooled in the meta-analysis (Fig. 1). Of the 34 included articles, 25 were conducted in Asia-Pacific(18 in Chinese mainland, 3 in Taiwan, 1 in Hong Kong, 2 in Korea, 1 in Japan), 4 in USA and 5 in Europe (3 in Italy, 1 in Greece, 1in England). Some of the included studies reported methylation status separately according to gender, histopathology types, smoking status and tumor stages. The general characteristics of included studies were summarized in table 1.P16INK4a Promoter Methylation and NSCLCP16INK4a Promoter Methylation and NSCLCFigure 3. The sensitivity analysis by omitting a single study under the random-effect method. The circles and horizontal lines represents the pooled OR and 95 CI by omitting a certain study. The area of the circles reflects the weight (by sample size). The diamond represents the pooled OR and 95 CI by including all of studies. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0060107.gPooled Results from the Meta-analysisIn the meta-analysis, data from 2 652 non-small cell lung cancer patients including 5 175 samples were pooled with an odds ratio of 3.45 (95 CI: 2.63?.54) in tumor Naringin site tissue versus autologous controls under random-effect method (Fig. 2). The sensitivity analysis indicated that the odds ratio range from 3.28(95 CI: 2.52?.28) to 3.57(95 CI: 2.72?.68) by omitting a single study under the random-effect model (Fig. 3). Only very slight change of odds ratio was seen in the sensitivity analysis, which 11967625 demonstrated that the pooled odds ratio was not sensitive to a single study.Meta-regression and Subgroup AnalysisAs the significant heterogeneity was found across the studies (I2 = 69.8 , x2 = 135.7, P,0.0001), the meta-regression was performed for further evaluation of the source of heterogeneity with the Knapp-Hartung modification method. We assumed the heterogeneity may arise from the control types, age of the subjects, ethnicity of the patients, histology types, smoking status, tumor stages, sample size and the methods of methylation detection. However, complete subtype data can be only obtained in the control types, ethnicity, sample size and methylation detection methods. So, the regression was carried out by including each of complete subtypes data in the covariates. In the results of the meta-regression, no source of significant heterogeneity was found in all of them except for the control type (coefficient = 20.36, P = 0.018, Table 2). The t2 decreased from 0.48 to 0.37, which indicates 23 [(0.48?.37)/0.48] of heterogeneity can be explained by different control 
types. However, the adjustment for all the other factors with complete data mentioned above reduced the residual variance across studies only by 6 , which indicates that different ethnicity, sample size and methylation detection methods can explain only a slight proportion of the heterogeneity among studies. But for conservative, we still performed subgroup analysis according to the potential heterogeneity sources. In the subgroup analysis, the significant odds of the P16INK4A promoter methylation in tumor tissue was only changed in non-smokers (OR = 4.53, 95 CI: 0.68?0.26, P = 0.120) and sputum.Tudies were excluded for the reasons: about other genes methylation status without P16INK4A, duplicated publication, no appropriate outcome data, about cell lines, about animals, without proper controls. Finally, thirty-four studies [6?8,13?3] that reported data of methylation frequency in nonsmall-cell lung carcinoma tissue, and autologous controls were finally pooled in the meta-analysis (Fig. 1). Of the 34 included articles, 25 were conducted in Asia-Pacific(18 in Chinese mainland, 3 in Taiwan, 1 in Hong Kong, 2 in Korea, 1 in Japan), 4 in USA and 5 in Europe (3 in Italy, 1 in Greece, 1in England). Some of the included studies reported methylation status separately according to gender, histopathology types, smoking status and tumor stages. The general characteristics of included studies were summarized in table 1.P16INK4a Promoter Methylation and NSCLCP16INK4a Promoter Methylation and NSCLCFigure 3. The sensitivity analysis by omitting a single study under the random-effect method. The circles and horizontal lines represents the pooled OR and 95 CI by omitting a certain study. The area of the circles reflects the weight (by sample size). The diamond represents the pooled OR and 95 CI by including all of studies. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0060107.gPooled Results from the Meta-analysisIn the meta-analysis, data from 2 652 non-small cell lung cancer patients including 5 175 samples were pooled with an odds ratio of 3.45 (95 CI: 2.63?.54) in tumor tissue versus autologous controls under random-effect method (Fig. 2). The sensitivity analysis indicated that the odds ratio range from 3.28(95 CI: 2.52?.28) to 3.57(95 CI: 2.72?.68) by omitting a single study under the random-effect model (Fig. 3). Only very slight change of odds ratio was seen in the sensitivity analysis, which 11967625 demonstrated that the pooled odds ratio was not sensitive to a single study.Meta-regression and Subgroup AnalysisAs the significant heterogeneity was found across the studies (I2 = 69.8 , x2 = 135.7, P,0.0001), the meta-regression was performed for further evaluation of the source of heterogeneity with the Knapp-Hartung modification method. We assumed the heterogeneity may arise from the control types, age of the subjects, ethnicity of the patients, histology types, smoking status, tumor stages, sample size and the methods of methylation detection. However, complete subtype data can be only obtained in the control types, ethnicity, sample size and methylation detection methods. So, the regression was carried out by including each of complete subtypes data in the covariates. In the results of the meta-regression, no source of significant heterogeneity was found in all of them except for the control type (coefficient = 20.36, P = 0.018, Table 2). The t2 decreased from 0.48 to 0.37, which indicates 23 [(0.48?.37)/0.48] of heterogeneity can be explained by different control types. However, the adjustment for all the other factors with complete data mentioned above reduced the residual variance across studies only by 6 , which indicates that different ethnicity, sample size and methylation detection methods can explain only a slight proportion of the heterogeneity among studies. But for conservative, we still performed subgroup analysis according to the potential heterogeneity sources. In the subgroup analysis, the significant odds of the P16INK4A promoter methylation in tumor tissue was only changed in non-smokers (OR = 4.53, 95 CI: 0.68?0.26, P = 0.120) and sputum.