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. The population, intervention (though this is an observational study), comparator, and outcomes are clearly defined.
|
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 conduct through PROSPERO registration and follows PRISMA 2020 guidelines. The protocol registration number is provided, confirming pre-establishment of methods.
|
yes | |
|
Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review?
sr_q3
|
Raw response parsing failed. Original content: ```json
{
"judgment": "partial yes",
"evidence_basis": "The review authors provide some explanation for their study design inclusion criteria, but the rationale could be more detailed. They explic...
|
yes | |
|
Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy?
sr_q4
|
The review reports searching four databases (Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL) and mentions a comprehensive search strategy, but lacks explicit details on MeSH terms/keywords used or reference list searching procedures. The protocol registration in PROSPERO suggests some methodological rigor.
|
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, which meets 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 review mentions using the Joanna Briggs Institution (JBI) standardised critical appraisal checklist for assessing risk of bias in includ...
|
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 all provided text sections (abstract, introduction, methods, results) 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 and provides justification for this choice based on expected heterogeneity between studies. The statistical methods are described with sufficient detail regarding outcome calculation, heterogeneity assessment, and significance thresholds.
|
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 provide any explicit discussion or analysis of how the risk of bias in individual studies might have impacted the meta-analysis...
|
yes | |
|
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 the JBI checklist and reports an overall score above 60% for included studies, indicating some consideration of RoB. However, there is no explicit discussion of how RoB assessments influenced the interpretation or synthesis of results.
|
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 assessing heterogeneity and conducting subgroup analyses, but lacks detailed explanation of heterogeneity sources and comprehensive discussion of 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
|
The document does not explicitly mention any investigation of publication bias (small study bias) or discussion of its potential impact on the results. While the review performed a quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis), there is no textual evidence of methods like funnel plots or statistical tests being used to assess publication bias, nor any discussion of its potential effects on the findings.
|
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 contains no explicit mention of funding sources or potential conflicts of interest for the review authors. While the document includes detailed methodological descriptions and results, it fails to address this critical AMSTAR-2 requirement regarding transparency of funding and conflicts.
|
no |