ArticleBMC medical research methodology2021
Incorporating single-arm studies in meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials: a simulation study.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Efficacy and safety of mesh reinforced cruroplasty with Phasix™ ST vs. Bio-AHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Suboptimal therapeutic responses associated with semaglutide in type 2 diabetes and obesity: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Cell reports. Medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- 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 · 2024Pooled it
- A meta-analysis comparing efficacy and safety between proton beam therapy versus carbon ion radiotherapy.Cancer medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Current status of minimally invasive surgery for thoracic esophageal diverticula: systematic review and meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Review
- Comment on "Thrombolytic therapy versus cardiac surgery for left-sided prosthetic heart valve thrombosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis".American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2026Article
- How to quantify between-study heterogeneity in single-arm evidence synthesis?-It depends!Systematic reviews · 2025Article
- Outcome Measures of Open versus Minimally Invasive Surgery for Thoracolumbar Spinal Traumatic Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Tipping point analysis for the between-arm correlation in an arm-based evidence synthesis.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Article
- Long-Term Survivorship of Cervical Spine Procedures; A Survivorship Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression.Global spine journal · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.