Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 16, 2026

Author Spotlight: Evaluating the Adjuvant Efficacy and Safety of Angong Niuhuang Pill in Viral Encephalitis Treatment
Published on: April 19, 2024
Impact of including or excluding both-armed zero-event studies on using standard meta-analysis methods for rare event
Ji Cheng1, Eleanor Pullenayegum2, John K Marshall3
1Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Objectives:
There is no consensus on whether studies with no observed events in the treatment and control arms, the so-called both-armed zero-event studies, should be included in a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Current analytic approaches handled them differently depending on the choice of effect measures and authors' discretion. Our objective is to evaluate the impact of including or excluding both-armed zero-event (BA0E) studies in meta-analysis of RCTs with rare outcome events through a simulation study.
Method:
We simulated 2500 data sets for different scenarios varying the parameters of baseline event rate, treatment effect and number of patients in each trial, and between-study variance. We evaluated the performance of commonly used pooling methods in classical meta-analysis-namely, Peto, Mantel-Haenszel with fixed-effects and random-effects models, and inverse variance method with fixed-effects and random-effects models-using bias, root mean square error, length of 95% CI and coverage.
Results:
The overall performance of the approaches of including or excluding BA0E studies in meta-analysis varied according to the magnitude of true treatment effect. Including BA0E studies introduced very little bias, decreased mean square error, narrowed the 95% CI and increased the coverage when no true treatment effect existed. However, when a true treatment effect existed, the estimates from the approach of excluding BA0E studies led to smaller bias than including them. Among all evaluated methods, the Peto method excluding BA0E studies gave the least biased results when a true treatment effect existed.
Conclusions:
We recommend including BA0E studies when treatment effects are unlikely, but excluding them when there is a decisive treatment effect. Providing results of including and excluding BA0E studies to assess the robustness of the pooled estimated effect is a sensible way to communicate the results of a meta-analysis when the treatment effects are unclear.
Related Concept Videos
Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
Censoring Survival Data
Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding
Confounding can be addressed at both the design phase of a study and through analytical methods after data...
One-Way ANOVA: Equal Sample Sizes
Different sample means can result in different values for the variance estimate: variance between samples. This is because the variance between samples is calculated as the product of the sample size and the variance between the...
Significance Testing: Overview
