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 questions and inclusion criteria. The population, intervention (though in this case it's exposure/condition), 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
|
Raw response parsing failed. Original content: ```json
{
"judgment": "partial yes",
"evidence_basis": "The review authors provide some explanation for their study design inclusion criteria, but the rationale could be more detailed. They explic...
|
yes | |
|
Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy?
sr_q4
|
The review mentions searching four databases and provides some details about the search strategy, but lacks comprehensive reporting of all required elements for a complete assessment. The document states that four databases were searched and mentions keywords, but does not provide full search strategies or confirm reference list searching.
|
partial 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, but does not explicitly mention duplicate study selection. The mention of two reviewers for data extraction implies but does not confirm duplicate 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 requirement 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 critical element of listing and justifying exclusions is absent.
|
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 included studies but lacks comprehensive descriptions of all required elements (study design, populat...
|
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 Institution (JBI) standardised critical appraisal checklist for assessing risk of bias in includ...
|
yes | |
|
Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review?
sr_q10
|
The document contains no mention of funding sources for the included studies. A thorough search of all provided text sections (abstract, introduction, methods, results) reveals no reporting on this aspect.
|
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. The statistical methods are described with sufficient detail including software used, handling of binary outcomes, 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...
|
yes | |
|
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 mentions assessing heterogeneity through I² statistics and conducting subgroup analyses, but lacks detailed discussion of specific sources of heterogeneity beyond broad categories.
|
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 provide any explicit mention of investigation or discussion of publication bias (small study bias) in relation to the quantitat...
|
no | |
|
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 contains no explicit mention of funding sources or potential conflicts of interest for the review authors. While affiliations are listed, there is no statement regarding financial support or competing interests related to the systematic review itself.
|
no |