Loading...

Quality Assessment Results

systematic_review_vancomycin_model_pediatric.pdf

Status: Completed
Document Type: Systematic Review
Assessment Tool: AMSTAR 2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) - 16 items
Assessment completed!
16/16
Next check in: 5 seconds
31.2%
Overall Quality Score
5/16 criteria met

Assessment Details

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
Assessment Summary
16
Total Criteria
5
Criteria Met
11
Issues Found
31.2%
Quality Score

Document Preview