Feasibility study and evaluation of expert opinion on the semi-automated meta-analysis and the conventional meta-analysis

Purpose To 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. Methods Experts 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. Results The 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. Conclusion In 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.