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 requirement for including PICO components in research questions and inclusion criteria. The populati...
|
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 adherence to PRISMA guidelines and provides a supplementary file addressing all 27 checklist items, which suggests some methodological planning. However, there is no explicit statement confirming that the review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review (e.g., through protocol registration or publication). The document does not mention any deviations from a protocol or justify such deviations.
|
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 comprehensive rationale for why certain designs were prioritized...
|
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 (PubMed, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar) and using Boolean search terms, but lacks complete ...
|
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 independent duplicate study selection during the quality assessment phase but lacks explicit confirmation ...
|
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 with justifications for exclusion, which is a required element for this AMSTAR-2 criterion.
|
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 information about the included studies but lacks complete details on all required elements (study design, po...
|
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 assessing study quality, which indicates some c...
|
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 systematic search and analysis focused on study characteristics, methodologies, and results, but funding sources were not addressed.
|
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 review mentions performing meta-analysis and describes some statistical methods used, but lacks explicit justification for the choice be...
|
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 ('Of 89 studies, 55 articles reported the resistance prevalence of E. coli and NTS....
|
no | |
|
Did the review authors account for RoB in individual studies when interpreting/discussing the results of the review?
sr_q13
|
The review mentions using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for quality assessment of included studies, which implies consideration of risk of bias. However, there is no explicit discussion of how risk of bias assessments were incorporated into the interpretation or discussion of results.
|
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
|
Raw response parsing failed. Original content: ```json
{
"judgment": "partial yes",
"evidence_basis": "The review mentions heterogeneity assessment and provides some subgroup analysis, but lacks detailed exploration of sources of heterogeneity...
|
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 document explicitly mentions the use of both contour-enhanced funnel plots and Egger's regression test to assess publication bias, which are appropriate methods. However, there is no explicit discussion of the likely impact of publication bias on the results of the review, which is a key component of the AMSTAR-2 criterion.
|
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 does not contain any explicit statements regarding potential sources of conflict of interest or funding received for conducting the review. A thorough search of the provided text sections (including author affiliations, methods, and supplementary material references) revealed no mention of these elements.
|
no |