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 observational, the 'exposure' is colonization status), comparator (implicit in prevalence studies as non-colonized children), and outcomes are all 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 the conduct of the review and provides the PROSPERO registration number. There is no mention of any deviations from the protocol, so no justification for deviations is needed.
|
yes | |
|
Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review?
sr_q3
|
The review provides some justification for study design inclusion but lacks comprehensive rationale for excluding other potential designs. The inclusion criteria specify cross-sectional or cohort studies but do not fully explain why other designs (e.g., case-control) were excluded.
|
partial 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 explicitly states that four databases were searched (Medline, Embase, Web of Science and CINAHL) and mentions a registered protoc...
|
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, which partially meets the AMSTAR-2 requirement for study selection in duplicate. However, the text does not explicitly mention whether the initial study selection (screening of titles/abstracts and full-texts) was performed in duplicate or describe a process for resolving disagreements during 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 document describes the study selection process and mentions exclusions, it does not fulfill the AMSTAR-2 requirement for providing a list of excluded studies with reasons.
|
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 contains no explicit mention of funding sources for the included studies. A thorough search of all provided text sections (abstract, introduction, methods, results) reveals no reporting on this aspect.
|
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 measures, 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 JBI checklists and reports overall scores, but does not explicitly describe how RoB was incorporated into results interpretation. Some discussion of heterogeneity may relate to quality concerns.
|
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
|
Raw response parsing failed. Original content: ```json
{
"judgment": "partial yes",
"evidence_basis": "The review mentions assessing heterogeneity through I² statistics and conducting subgroup analyses, but lacks detailed discussion of specifi...
|
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.
|
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 conflicts of interest or funding sources for the review. A thorough search of all provided text sections (including title page, abstract, methods, results, and references) found no mention of funding disclosures or conflict of interest declarations.
|
no |