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 review mentions following PRISMA guidelines and addressing all checklist items, but does not explicitly state whether the methods were established prior to the review or justify any deviations from 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 justification for study design inclusion but lacks comprehensive rationale for all design choices. The authors expl...
|
some concerns | |
|
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 reports searching multiple databases (PubMed, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar) and using Boolean search terms, but lacks complete d...
|
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 evidence of duplicate study selection during the quality assessment phase but lacks explicit confirmation for the init...
|
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 with justifications for exclusion. While the selection process is described in detail, there is no evidence of a comprehensive 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 substantial details about the included studies but lacks comprehensive reporting of all required elements for each study...
|
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
|
The document does not contain any explicit mention of reporting on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review. The methods section details the selection criteria, data extraction, and statistical analysis but does not address funding sources for included studies.
|
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: ```json
{
"judgment": "no",
"evidence_basis": "The document does not provide any explicit information about whether the review authors assessed the potential impact of risk of bias (RoB) in indivi...
|
yes | |
|
Did the review authors account for RoB in individual studies when interpreting/discussing the results of the review?
sr_q13
|
The review mentions using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for quality assessment of included studies, which includes risk of bias evaluation. However, there is no explicit discussion of how risk of bias assessments were incorporated into the interpretation or discussion 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 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
|
The review explicitly mentions performing quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis) and states that publication bias was assessed using two methods (funnel plots and Egger's test). However, the document does not provide the actual results of these assessments or discuss their potential impact on the review findings.
|
partial 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 does not contain any explicit statements regarding potential sources of conflict of interest or funding received for conducting the review. A thorough search of the provided text sections (including author affiliations, methods, and acknowledgments) found no mention of these elements.
|
no |