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
|
The document explicitly states all PICO components in both the research questions and inclusion criteria. The population, intervention (though in this case it's observational so more accurately 'exposure'), comparator, and outcomes are all clearly defined.
|
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 conduct through PROSPERO registration and follows PRISMA 2020 guidelines. The protocol registration number is provided, confirming pre-establishment of methods.
|
yes | |
|
Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review?
sr_q3
|
The review authors provide some explanation for their study design inclusion criteria, but the rationale could be more detailed. They explicitly state that cross-sectional or cohort studies were included, which is appropriate for estimating prevalence. However, they do not fully explain why other study designs were excluded or why these particular designs are most suitable for their research question.
|
partial 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 explicitly states that four databases were searched (Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL) and mentions a registered proto...
|
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' but does not explicitly mention duplicate study selection. However, the mention of two independent reviewers for data extraction implies a similar process may have been used for study selection, though this is not explicitly stated.
|
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 critical element of listing and justifying exclusions is 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 review mentions using the Joanna Briggs Institution (JBI) standardised critical appraisal checklist for assessing risk of bias in includ...
|
yes | |
|
Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review?
sr_q10
|
The document contains no explicit mention of funding sources for the included studies. A thorough search of all provided text sections (including methods, results, and supplemental material references) 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 between studies. The statistical methods are described with sufficient detail regarding outcome measures, heterogeneity assessment, and significance thresholds.
|
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
|
The document does not provide any explicit discussion or analysis of how the risk of bias in individual studies might have impacted the meta-analysis results. While the authors mention assessing risk of bias using the JBI checklist, there is no reported evaluation of how this bias might affect the synthesis results.
|
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 overall scores, but does not explicitly describe how RoB was incorporated into results interpretation. Some discussion of heterogeneity may relate to RoB considerations.
|
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 assessing heterogeneity and conducting subgroup analyses, but lacks detailed explanation of heterogeneity sources and comprehensive discussion of findings.
|
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 document does not explicitly mention any investigation of publication bias (small study bias) or discuss its potential impact on the results. While the review performed a quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis), there is no textual evidence of methods like funnel plots or statistical tests being used to assess publication bias, nor any discussion of its potential effects.
|
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. A thorough search of all provided text sections (including title page, abstract, methods, results, and references) reveals no reporting of this information.
|
no |