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
|
Raw response parsing failed. Original content: ```json
{
"judgment": "partial yes",
"evidence_basis": "The document provides explicit statements about the population (young children), intervention (asymptomatic colonization assessment), and ou...
|
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 the conduct of the review and provides the PROSPERO registration number. There is no mention of any deviations from the protocol, which implies none occurred.
|
yes | |
|
Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review?
sr_q3
|
The review authors explicitly state the inclusion of cross-sectional or cohort studies but provide limited rationale for why these designs were selected over others. The justification is somewhat implied by the research question but not fully developed.
|
partial 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.
|
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' (P1.L22-23), which partially meets the AMSTAR-2 requirement for duplicate study selection. However, the text does not explicitly mention whether study selection (screening of titles/abstracts and full-texts) was performed in duplicate, nor does it describe a process for resolving disagreements during 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 required details about excluded studies 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 some details about the included studies but lacks comprehensive descriptions of all required elements (study design, pop...
|
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 document mentions the use of the Joanna Briggs Institution (JBI) standardized critical appraisal checklist for assessing risk of bias in...
|
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, 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, and assessment of heterogeneity.
|
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 explicitly mention any assessment of the potential impact of risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies on the meta-analysis resu...
|
no | |
|
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 an overall score >60% for included studies, but does not explicitly describe how RoB was incorporated into the interpretation/discussion of results. The methods section describes RoB assessment procedures, but the results/discussion sections lack explicit linkage between RoB findings and result interpretation.
|
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 investigating heterogeneity through subgroup analysis and reports I² statistics, but does not provide a comprehensive discussion of potential sources of heterogeneity or their implications for the results.
|
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 explicitly mention any investigation of publication bias (small study bias) or discussion of its potential impact on the review...
|
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 the document includes detailed methodological descriptions and results, it fails to address this critical AMSTAR-2 requirement regarding transparency of funding and conflicts.
|
no |