SynthesisEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2022
Feasibility study and evaluation of expert opinion on the semi-automated meta-analysis and the conventional meta-analysis.
Synthesis in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 3 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Transforming evidence synthesis: A systematic review of the evolution of automated meta-analysis in the age of AI.Research synthesis methods · 2026Pooled it
- Risk of miscarriage after benzodiazepine use during pregnancy: updated systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Pooled it
- Neurodevelopmental outcomes after prenatal exposure to lamotrigine monotherapy in women with epilepsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2024Pooled it
- The landscape of artificial intelligence tools and platforms for evidence synthesis: a scoping review.Systematic reviews · 2026Article
- Automation of systematic reviews of biomedical literature: a scoping review of studies indexed in PubMed.Systematic reviews · 2024Article
- Risk of drug use during pregnancy: master protocol for living systematic reviews and meta-analyses performed in the metaPreg project.Systematic reviews · 2023Article
- Knowledge in Motion: A Comprehensive Review of Evidence-Based Human Kinetics.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the feasibility and acceptance of the semi-automated meta-analysis (SAMA). The objectives are twofold, namely (1) to compare expert opinion on the quality of protocols, methods, and results of one conventional meta-analysis (CMA) and one SAMA and (2) to compare the time to execute the CMA and the SAMA.
methodsExperts evaluated the protocols and manuscripts/reports of the CMA and SAMA conducted independently on the safety of metronidazole in pregnancy. Expert opinion was collected using AMSTAR 2 checklist. Time spent was recorded using case report forms.
resultsThe overall scores of the opinion of all experts for protocols, methods, and results for SAMA (6.75) and CMA (6.87) were not statistically different (p = 0.88). The experts' confidence in the results of each MA was 7.89 ± 1.17 and 8.11 ± 0.92, respectively. The time to completion was 14 working days for SAMA and 24.7 for CMA. MA tasks such as calculation of effect estimates, subgroup/sensitivity analysis, and publication bias investigation required no investment in time for SAMA.
conclusionIn conclusion, our study demonstrated the feasibility of SAMA and suggests acceptance for risk assessment by an expert committee. Our results suggest that SAMA reduces the time required for a MA without altering expert confidence in the methodological and scientific rigor. As our study was limited to one example, the generalization of our results requires confirmation by other studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35501476What 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.