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 research question and inclusion criteria explicitly address all relevant PICO components for a prevalence study. Population and Outcome are fully defined, while Intervention and Comparator are not applicable to this observational design.
|
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 explicitly states protocol registration in PROSPERO but provides no discussion of protocol deviations
|
partial yes | |
|
Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review?
sr_q3
|
The document explicitly states which study designs were included but provides no rationale for their selection. While cross-sectional and cohort designs are standard for prevalence studies, no explicit justification is provided per AMSTAR-2 requirements.
|
no | |
|
Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy?
sr_q4
|
The review explicitly states searching four databases but provides insufficient detail about search terms/MeSH usage and lacks documentation of reference list searching or other supplementary search methods
|
partial yes | |
|
Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate?
sr_q5
|
No explicit mention of dual independent study selection process for title/abstract or full-text screening phases. Only data extraction/analysis describes independent duplicate review.
|
no | |
|
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 explicitly states that two reviewers performed data extraction independently but does not describe a process for resolving disa... Error information: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 5 column 180 (char 409)
|
yes | |
|
Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions?
sr_q7
|
The document does not explicitly state that a list of excluded studies at full-text level was provided. While the methods section describes the screening process and mentions excluded studies in numerical terms, there is no explicit reporting of a list of excluded studies with justifications.
|
no | |
|
Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail?
sr_q8
|
Raw response parsing failed. Original content: {
"judgment": "partial yes",
"evidence_basis": "The review provides partial descriptions of included studies but relies heavily on supplemental materials for key details. Main text explicitly stat...
|
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
|
The review explicitly states use of JBI checklists for observational studies but does not confirm tool appropriateness for all study designs or provide implementation details.
|
partial yes | |
|
Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review?
sr_q10
|
The document provides no explicit mention of funding sources for included studies. While the review methodology describes data extraction elements and risk of bias assessment, funding disclosure for primary studies is never referenced. Supplemental appendices referenced in the text are unavailable for verification.
|
no | |
|
If meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results?
sr_q11
|
The review explicitly states using random effects models for meta-analyses and reports heterogeneity assessment (I² statistics), but does not provide explicit justification for model choice selection.
|
partial 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
|
The document describes risk of bias assessment using JBI checklists but provides no evidence of evaluating how RoB influenced meta-analysis results. While subgroup analyses are mentioned, none address RoB impact. No sensitivity analyses or discussion of RoB effects on pooled estimates are present.
|
no | |
|
Did the review authors account for RoB in individual studies when interpreting/discussing the results of the review?
sr_q13
|
The document explicitly states risk of bias assessment using JBI checklists but provides no evidence that these assessments were considered during results interpretation/discussion. While methodological details mention bias assessment, no text demonstrates integration of RoB findings into synthesis or conclusions.
|
no | |
|
Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review?
sr_q14
|
The authors conducted subgroup analyses to investigate heterogeneity but provided incomplete discussion of sources. While statistical heterogeneity was quantified (I²=97.9% for S. aureus, 96.7% for MRSA) and some geographic/economic factors were explored, the document contains insufficient detail about all investigated heterogeneity sources and lacks depth in biological/clinical explanations.
|
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
|
No explicit mention of publication bias assessment methods or discussion of their impact on results
|
no | |
|
Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review?
sr_q16
|
No explicit statements about review funding sources or conflicts of interest were identified in the provided document text. While several methodological elements are described in detail, no section addresses financial support for the review itself or author declarations of interest.
|
no |