A_systematic_review_and_meta-analysis_of_integrated_studies_on_antimicrobial_resistance_in_Vietnam_with_a_focus_on_Enterobacteriaceae_from_a_One_Health_perspective.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
|
Raw response parsing failed. Original content: ```json
{
"judgment": "partial yes",
"evidence_basis": "The review partially meets the AMSTAR-2 requirement for PICO components in research questions and inclusion criteria. The population (Entero...
|
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 mentions adherence to PRISMA guidelines and provides a detailed methodology section, but lacks explicit mention of a pre-established protocol or justification for any deviations from such a protocol.
|
partial 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 provides some rationale for study design inclusion but lacks explicit justification for why certain designs were prioritized over...
|
yes | |
|
Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy?
sr_q4
|
Raw response parsing failed. Original content: ```json
{
"judgment": "partial yes",
"evidence_basis": "The review mentions searching multiple databases (PubMed, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar) and using Boolean search terms, but lacks complete ...
|
yes | |
|
Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate?
sr_q5
|
Raw response parsing failed. Original content: ```json
{
"judgment": "partial yes",
"evidence_basis": "The document provides partial evidence of duplicate study selection but lacks complete methodological details about the initial screening st...
|
yes | |
|
Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate?
sr_q6
|
Raw response parsing failed. Original content: ```json
{
"judgment": "partial yes",
"evidence_basis": "The document provides evidence that data extraction was performed by two independent reviewers with a third reviewer resolving discrepancies...
|
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 selection process is described in detail, including the criteria for exclusion, there is no evidence that the authors provided a list of excluded studies with reasons for each exclusion.
|
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 substantial details about the included studies but lacks comprehensive descriptions of all required elements (study desi...
|
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 Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for assessing study quality, which indicates some f...
|
yes | |
|
Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review?
sr_q10
|
Raw response parsing failed. Original content: ```json
{
"judgment": "no",
"evidence_basis": "The document does not contain any explicit mention of reporting on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review. The systematic sear...
|
no | |
|
If meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results?
sr_q11
|
Raw response parsing failed. Original content: ```json
{
"judgment": "partial yes",
"evidence_basis": "The review explicitly states that a meta-analysis was performed and describes some statistical methods used, including the use of a generali...
|
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: API_ERROR: DeepSeek HTTP Error 429: Too many requests. Please pace your requests reasonably. We also advise users to temporarily switch to alternative LLM API service providers....
|
Error: Parse Failure | |
|
Did the review authors account for RoB in individual studies when interpreting/discussing the results of the review?
sr_q13
|
Raw response parsing failed. Original content: ```json
{
"judgment": "partial yes",
"evidence_basis": "The review mentions using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for quality assessment of included studies, which i...
|
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 provides some analysis of heterogeneity through statistical methods and subgroup analysis, but lacks comprehensive discussion of potential sources or explanations for observed heterogeneity.
|
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": "partial yes",
"evidence_basis": "The review mentions investigating publication bias but provides incomplete methodological details and limited discussion of impact. The meth...
|
yes | |
|
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 author affiliations are listed, these do not constitute a formal declaration of conflicts or funding specific to this review.
|
no |