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 criterion for including PICO components in research questions and inclusion criteria. While the popu...
|
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 conduct or justify any deviations from a protocol. The reference to PRISMA suggests some methodological planning, but lacks explicit protocol details.
|
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 explicit rationale for why certain designs were prioritized over...
|
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 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 but lacks complete details about the process for resolving disagreements between...
|
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 or justifications for their exclusion. While the selection process is described, the specific requirement of listing excluded studies with reasons is not met.
|
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 includes risk of...
|
yes | |
|
Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review?
sr_q10
|
Raw response parsing failed. Original content: ```json
{
"judgment": "no",
"evidence_basis": "The document does not contain any explicit mention or reporting of the funding sources for the studies included in the systematic review. The methods...
|
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 mentions performing meta-analysis and describes some statistical methods, but lacks explicit justification for model choice (fixe...
|
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 explicitly states that a meta-analysis was performed ('Of 89 studies, 55 articles reported the resistance prevalence of E. coli and NTS....
|
no | |
|
Did the review authors account for RoB in individual studies when interpreting/discussing the results of the review?
sr_q13
|
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 quality assessment of included studies, which i...
|
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 a comprehensive discussion of potential sources of heterogeneity beyond statistical measures.
|
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": "partial yes",
"evidence_basis": "The review mentions investigating publication bias but provides incomplete methodological details and limited discussion of impact. The meth...
|
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 about potential sources of conflict of interest or funding received for conducting the review. No declarations or acknowledgments regarding funding or conflicts are present in the provided text.
|
no |