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
|
The review explicitly states Population (Enterobacteriaceae in humans/animals/environment) and Outcome (AMR prevalence) components but lacks explicit Intervention and Comparator specifications in inclusion criteria. While compartment comparisons are analyzed, they are not framed as formal comparators in the eligibility criteria.
|
partial 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
|
No explicit statement of protocol establishment prior to review conduct or justification for deviations found in provided text
|
no | |
|
Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review?
sr_q3
|
The document provides detailed inclusion/exclusion criteria focused on bacterial species, sample sources, and testing methods, but lacks explicit rationale for study design selection. While the methods mention using a prevalence study appraisal tool (JBI checklist), this constitutes implied rather than explicit justification for focusing on observational/prevalence study designs.
|
no | |
|
Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy?
sr_q4
|
Raw response parsing failed. Original content: ```json
{
"judgment": "yes",
"evidence_basis": "The review explicitly reports searching multiple databases (PubMed, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar), uses Boolean operators with detailed keyword com...
|
yes | |
|
Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate?
sr_q5
|
No explicit mention of duplicate study selection process. Only quality assessment and data extraction describe independent reviewers.
|
no | |
|
Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate?
sr_q6
|
The document explicitly describes duplicate data extraction with independent reviewers and a conflict resolution process
|
yes | |
|
Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions?
sr_q7
|
The document explicitly describes exclusion criteria and PRISMA compliance but provides no evidence of a full-text excluded studies list with justifications. While exclusion criteria are stated ('articles that did not contain sufficient information... were excluded'), there is no mention of compiling or publishing a list of excluded full-text articles with individual 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 but incomplete details about included studies. While population characteristics (host types, sample sources)...
|
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: {
"judgment": "partial yes",
"evidence_basis": "The review explicitly mentions using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for prevalence studies, which provides structure...
|
yes | |
|
Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review?
sr_q10
|
No explicit reporting of funding sources for included studies found in any methodological descriptions or results sections. The data extraction protocol (P2.L43-P2.L51) lists 10 categories of extracted information without including funding sources. The PRISMA compliance statement (P2.L47-49) does not address this element.
|
no | |
|
If meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results?
sr_q11
|
The review explicitly describes using random-effects modeling with heterogeneity justification and appropriate statistical methods for proportion transformation
|
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 checklist but provides no evidence of evaluating how risk of bias impacted meta-analysis results. No sensitivity analyses, subgroup analyses by RoB, or discussion of RoB influence on pooled estimates are documented.
|
no | |
|
Did the review authors account for RoB in individual studies when interpreting/discussing the results of the review?
sr_q13
|
The review describes quality assessment using JBI checklist but fails to demonstrate integration of risk of bias considerations in results interpretation
|
no | |
|
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 demonstrates basic statistical investigation of heterogeneity but provides limited discussion of sources. Heterogeneity assessmen...
|
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 states using two appropriate methods for publication bias assessment (funnel plots and Egger's test) but provides no results or discussion about bias impact
|
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
|
No explicit statements regarding review funding sources or author conflicts of interest were found in the provided document content. While author affiliations include institutions that may have potential relevance (e.g., FAO, Oxford University Clinical Research Unit), no direct links to review funding or conflicts are explicitly stated.
|
no |