systematic_review_vancomycin_model_pediatric.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: {
"judgment": "partial yes",
"evidence_basis": "The review provides explicit statements regarding the Population (paediatric patients <18 years), Intervention (intravenous vancomycin), and Outcome...
|
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
|
Raw response parsing failed. Original content: {
"judgment": "no",
"evidence_basis": "The AMSTAR-2 criterion requires an explicit statement that the review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review (e.g., protocol registratio...
|
no | |
Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review?
sr_q3
|
Raw response parsing failed. Original content: {
"judgment": "partial yes",
"evidence_basis": "The review explicitly states the types of study designs included (observational studies describing the development of popPK models of vancomycin in ...
|
yes | |
Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy?
sr_q4
|
Raw response parsing failed. Original content: API_ERROR: OpenAI_ChatGPT HTTP Error 429: {
"error": {
"message": "Rate limit reached for gpt-4.1 in organization org-sBw3NuTXm9BWzZZ28cNzByY8 on tokens per min (TPM): Limit 30000, Used 24...
|
Error: Parse Failure | |
Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate?
sr_q5
|
Raw response parsing failed. Original content: API_ERROR: OpenAI_ChatGPT HTTP Error 429: {
"error": {
"message": "Rate limit reached for gpt-4.1 in organization org-sBw3NuTXm9BWzZZ28cNzByY8 on tokens per min (TPM): Limit 30000, Used 30...
|
Error: Parse Failure | |
Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate?
sr_q6
|
The review provides a clear, explicit description that data extraction was performed by one reviewer and independently checked by a second reviewer, which meets the AMSTAR-2 requirement for duplicate data extraction. The process for minimizing errors is described, and the roles of both reviewers are specified. There is no ambiguity in the reporting, and the procedure aligns with AMSTAR-2 standards for this item.
|
yes | |
Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions?
sr_q7
|
Raw response parsing failed. Original content: {
"judgment": "no",
"evidence_basis": "AMSTAR-2 requires a list of excluded studies at the full-text screening stage, with reasons for each exclusion. The review provides a PRISMA-style flow diagr...
|
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 a moderate level of detail about the included studies, covering several but not all of the required elements. The Methods sectio...
|
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 states that risk of bias was assessed for included studies using the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NIH) Study Qual...
|
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: {
"judgment": "no",
"evidence_basis": "A systematic search of the provided document content, including the methods, results, and all available sections, reveals no mention of reporting the sources...
|
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: API_ERROR: OpenAI_ChatGPT HTTP Error 429: {
"error": {
"message": "Rate limit reached for gpt-4.1 in organization org-sBw3NuTXm9BWzZZ28cNzByY8 on tokens per min (TPM): Limit 30000, Used 30...
|
Error: Parse Failure | |
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: {
"judgment": "no",
"evidence_basis": "AMSTAR-2 requires that, if a meta-analysis is performed, the review must explicitly assess and discuss the potential impact of risk of bias (RoB) in individu...
|
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: API_ERROR: OpenAI_ChatGPT HTTP Error 429: {
"error": {
"message": "Rate limit reached for gpt-4.1 in organization org-sBw3NuTXm9BWzZZ28cNzByY8 on tokens per min (TPM): Limit 30000, Used 24...
|
Error: Parse Failure | |
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: {
"judgment": "no",
"evidence_basis": "The AMSTAR-2 criterion requires that the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results ...
|
no | |
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: {
"judgment": "no",
"evidence_basis": "AMSTAR-2 requires that, if a quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis) is performed, the review must explicitly report an investigation of publication bias (e.g...
|
no | |
Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review?
sr_q16
|
Raw response parsing failed. Original content: {
"judgment": "no",
"evidence_basis": "A systematic and comprehensive search of all provided text (title page, abstract, methods, results, author affiliations, and all visible sections) reveals no...
|
no |