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 document provides partial but incomplete evidence regarding the inclusion of PICO components in the research questions and inclusion cri...
|
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 mentions adherence to PRISMA guidelines and provides a detailed methodology section, but lacks explicit statement of protocol establishment prior to review conduct or justification for any deviations from a protocol.
|
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 why certain designs were prioritized over...
|
yes | |
|
Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy?
sr_q4
|
The review reports searching multiple databases (PubMed, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar) and using Boolean search terms, but lacks complete details on MeSH terms, full search strategy, or date restrictions. Reference list searching is mentioned but not fully described.
|
partial yes | |
|
Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate?
sr_q5
|
The document provides partial evidence of duplicate study selection but lacks complete methodological details. While it mentions independent reviewers for quality assessment, the description of study selection is less explicit.
|
partial yes | |
|
Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate?
sr_q6
|
The document provides evidence that data extraction was performed by two independent reviewers with a third reviewer resolving discrepancies, but lacks explicit details about whether this was done in duplicate for all data items or just for quality assessment.
|
partial 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 in detail, there is no evidence that the authors complied with this specific AMSTAR-2 requirement.
|
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 all required elements (study des...
|
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 f...
|
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 of reporting on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review. A thorough search of the provided text sections (including methods, results, and supplementary file references) reveals no discussion or reporting 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 review mentions performing meta-analysis and describes some statistical methods, but lacks explicit justification for the choice between...
|
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 provide any explicit evidence that the review authors assessed the potential impact of risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies...
|
yes | |
|
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 (RoB). However, there is no explicit discussion of how RoB 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
|
The review provides some analysis of heterogeneity through statistical methods and subgroup analysis, but lacks a comprehensive discussion of potential sources or explanations for observed heterogeneity.
|
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": "partial yes",
"evidence_basis": "The review explicitly mentions performing quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis) and states that publication bias was assessed using two met...
|
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. A thorough search of all provided text sections (including author affiliations, methods, and supplementary material references) found no reporting of these elements.
|
no |