Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34082702›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2021

Incorporating single-arm studies in meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials: a simulation study.

Janharpreet Singh, Keith R Abrams, Sylwia Bujkiewicz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Efficacy and safety of mesh reinforced cruroplasty with Phasix™ ST vs. Bio-AHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Efficacy and safety of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in elderly patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2024
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Janharpreet SinghBiostatistics Research Group, Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK. js929@leicester.ac.uk.
Keith R AbramsBiostatistics Research Group, Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Sylwia BujkiewiczBiostatistics Research Group, Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3003-9403

Funding

Department of Health NIHR300190Medical Research Council MR/R025223/1National Institute for Health Research NF-SI-0512-10159National Institute for Health Research RM-FI-2017-08-027
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUse of real world data (RWD) from non-randomised studies (e.g. single-arm studies) is increasingly being explored to overcome issues associated with data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We aimed to compare methods for pairwise meta-analysis of RCTs and single-arm studies using aggregate data, via a simulation study and application to an illustrative example.

methodsWe considered contrast-based methods proposed by Begg & Pilote (1991) and arm-based methods by Zhang et al (2019). We performed a simulation study with scenarios varying (i) the proportion of RCTs and single-arm studies in the synthesis (ii) the magnitude of bias, and (iii) between-study heterogeneity. We also applied methods to data from a published health technology assessment (HTA), including three RCTs and 11 single-arm studies.

resultsOur simulation study showed that the hierarchical power and commensurate prior methods by Zhang et al provided a consistent reduction in uncertainty, whilst maintaining over-coverage and small error in scenarios where there was limited RCT data, bias and differences in between-study heterogeneity between the two sets of data. The contrast-based methods provided a reduction in uncertainty, but performed worse in terms of coverage and error, unless there was no marked difference in heterogeneity between the two sets of data.

conclusionsThe hierarchical power and commensurate prior methods provide the most robust approach to synthesising aggregate data from RCTs and single-arm studies, balancing the need to account for bias and differences in between-study heterogeneity, whilst reducing uncertainty in estimates. This work was restricted to considering a pairwise meta-analysis using aggregate data.

Indexed as

BiasHumansMeta-Analysis as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicArm-based methodsBayesian hierarchical methodsEvidence synthesisMeta-analysisReal world dataSingle-arm studies

Identifiers

PMID34082702
PMCPMC8176581

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.