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), 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. No deviations from the protocol are mentioned, thus none require justification.
|
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), which meets the minimum requir...
|
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 document does not explicitly mention whether the study selection process (screening of titles/abstracts and full-text articles) was performed in duplicate by two independent reviewers, nor does it 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 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 or reporting of funding sources for the studies included in the review. The assessment is based on a thorough search of the provided text, which includes methods, results, and supplementary material references, but no information about funding sources for included studies was found.
|
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 model selection, 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...
|
no | |
|
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 acknowledges heterogeneity through statistical measures (I²) and conducts subgroup analyses, but lacks comprehensive discussion of potential sources of heterogeneity beyond basic subgroup categorizations.
|
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 discussion of its potential impact on the result...
|
no | |
|
Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review?
sr_q16
|
Raw response parsing failed. Original content: ```json
{
"judgment": "no",
"evidence_basis": "The document contains no explicit statement about potential conflicts of interest or funding sources for the review. While author affiliations are li...
|
no |