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. The Population...
|
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 the review 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 excluding certain designs. The inclusion ...
|
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 mentions searching multiple databases and using Boolean logic with keywords, but lacks complete details on MeSH terms, full searc...
|
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 methodological details about the process. The text states tha...
|
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 details required by AMSTAR-2 are missing.
|
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 descriptions for some key elements. The methods s...
|
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 quality assessment of included studies, which i...
|
yes | |
|
Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review?
sr_q10
|
The document does not contain any explicit mention or reporting of the sources of funding for the studies included in the review. The methodology section details the selection process, data extraction, and statistical analysis but omits any discussion of funding sources for the included studies.
|
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 document provides evidence that a meta-analysis was performed and mentions the use of statistical methods including a generalized linear...
|
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 ('A total of 89 articles found in PubMed, Science Direct, and Google Scholar databa...
|
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 mentions heterogeneity assessment and subgroup analysis but lacks detailed explanation of heterogeneity sources and comprehensive discussion of heterogeneity implications.
|
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
|
The review explicitly states that publication bias was assessed using both contour-enhanced funnel plots and Egger's regression test, which are appropriate methods. However, the document does not provide the actual results of these tests or discuss their impact on the review findings.
|
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
|
The document contains no explicit mention of funding sources or potential conflicts of interest for the review authors. While institutional affiliations are listed for all authors, this does not constitute reporting of conflicts of interest or funding specific to the review.
|
no |