Cargando…

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

BACKGROUND: Use 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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Singh, Janharpreet, Abrams, Keith R., Bujkiewicz, Sylwia
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8176581/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34082702
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01301-1
_version_ 1783703280442933248
author Singh, Janharpreet
Abrams, Keith R.
Bujkiewicz, Sylwia
author_facet Singh, Janharpreet
Abrams, Keith R.
Bujkiewicz, Sylwia
author_sort Singh, Janharpreet
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Use 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. METHODS: We 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. RESULTS: Our 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. CONCLUSIONS: The 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at (10.1186/s12874-021-01301-1).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8176581
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-81765812021-06-04 Incorporating single-arm studies in meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials: a simulation study Singh, Janharpreet Abrams, Keith R. Bujkiewicz, Sylwia BMC Med Res Methodol Research BACKGROUND: Use 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. METHODS: We 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. RESULTS: Our 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. CONCLUSIONS: The 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at (10.1186/s12874-021-01301-1). BioMed Central 2021-06-03 /pmc/articles/PMC8176581/ /pubmed/34082702 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01301-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Singh, Janharpreet
Abrams, Keith R.
Bujkiewicz, Sylwia
Incorporating single-arm studies in meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials: a simulation study
title Incorporating single-arm studies in meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials: a simulation study
title_full Incorporating single-arm studies in meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials: a simulation study
title_fullStr Incorporating single-arm studies in meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials: a simulation study
title_full_unstemmed Incorporating single-arm studies in meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials: a simulation study
title_short Incorporating single-arm studies in meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials: a simulation study
title_sort incorporating single-arm studies in meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials: a simulation study
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8176581/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34082702
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01301-1
work_keys_str_mv AT singhjanharpreet incorporatingsinglearmstudiesinmetaanalysisofrandomisedcontrolledtrialsasimulationstudy
AT abramskeithr incorporatingsinglearmstudiesinmetaanalysisofrandomisedcontrolledtrialsasimulationstudy
AT bujkiewiczsylwia incorporatingsinglearmstudiesinmetaanalysisofrandomisedcontrolledtrialsasimulationstudy