archdischild-2023-326124.pdf
| Assessment Criterion | AI Analysis | AI Judgment | Issues |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Did the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review include the components of PICO?
sr_q1
|
The document explicitly states all PICO components in both the research objectives and inclusion criteria sections. The population, intervention (though this is an observational study, the 'exposure' is clearly defined), comparator, and outcomes are all clearly specified.
|
yes | |
|
Did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review and did the report justify any significant deviations from the protocol?
sr_q2
|
The document explicitly states that the review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review and provides the PROSPERO registration number. There is no mention of any deviations from the protocol, so no justification is needed.
|
yes | |
|
Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review?
sr_q3
|
The review provides a clear statement about the inclusion of cross-sectional or cohort studies, but does not fully explain why these designs were selected over others or discuss potential limitations of these designs for addressing the research question.
|
partial yes | |
|
Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy?
sr_q4
|
The review mentions searching four databases and provides some details about the search strategy, but lacks comprehensive reporting of all required elements for a complete assessment.
|
partial yes | |
|
Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate?
sr_q5
|
The document explicitly states that 'data extraction and analysis were carried out by two reviewers independently' but does not explicitly mention duplicate study selection. The mention of two reviewers for data extraction implies but does not confirm duplicate study selection.
|
partial yes | |
|
Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate?
sr_q6
|
The document explicitly states that data extraction was performed by two reviewers independently, meeting the AMSTAR-2 criterion for duplicate data extraction.
|
yes | |
|
Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions?
sr_q7
|
The document does not provide any explicit mention of a list of excluded studies at the full-text level or justifications for their exclusion. While the study selection process is described, the required details about excluded studies are missing.
|
no | |
|
Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail?
sr_q8
|
Raw response parsing failed. Original content: ```json
{
"judgment": "partial yes",
"evidence_basis": "The review provides some details about the included studies but lacks comprehensive descriptions of all required elements (study design, pop...
|
yes | |
|
Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review?
sr_q9
|
Raw response parsing failed. Original content: ```json
{
"judgment": "partial yes",
"evidence_basis": "The document mentions the use of the Joanna Briggs Institution (JBI) standardised critical appraisal checklist for assessing risk of bias in...
|
yes | |
|
Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review?
sr_q10
|
The document does not contain any explicit mention of funding sources for the included studies. A thorough search of the provided text sections (including methods, results, and appendices references) reveals no discussion or reporting of funding information for the primary studies included in the review.
|
no | |
|
If meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results?
sr_q11
|
The document explicitly states that a random-effects model was used for meta-analysis, which is generally appropriate for prevalence studies with expected heterogeneity. However, the justification for choosing this model over a fixed-effects model is not explicitly provided, though the presence of significant heterogeneity (I² statistics) is reported.
|
partial yes | |
|
If meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors assess the potential impact of RoB in individual studies on the results of the meta-analysis or other evidence synthesis?
sr_q12
|
Raw response parsing failed. Original content: ```json
{
"judgment": "no",
"evidence_basis": "The document does not explicitly mention any assessment of the potential impact of risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies on the meta-analysis resu...
|
high risk | |
|
Did the review authors account for RoB in individual studies when interpreting/discussing the results of the review?
sr_q13
|
The review mentions risk of bias assessment using JBI checklists and reports overall scores, but does not explicitly describe how RoB was incorporated into the interpretation/discussion of results. Some discussion of heterogeneity may relate to RoB considerations.
|
partial yes | |
|
Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review?
sr_q14
|
The review mentions investigating heterogeneity through subgroup analyses and I² statistics, but does not provide a comprehensive discussion of all potential sources of heterogeneity or their implications for the results.
|
partial yes | |
|
If they performed quantitative synthesis, did the review authors carry out an adequate investigation of publication bias (small study bias) and discuss its likely impact on the results of the review?
sr_q15
|
Raw response parsing failed. Original content: ```json
{
"judgment": "no",
"evidence_basis": "The document does not explicitly mention any investigation of publication bias (small study bias) or discuss its potential impact on the results of t...
|
no | |
|
Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review?
sr_q16
|
The document does not contain any explicit statements about potential sources of conflict of interest or funding received for conducting the review. A thorough search of the provided text sections (including the abstract, methods, results, and conclusion sections) reveals no mention of conflicts of interest or funding disclosures.
|
no |