Table 3.
Quality assessment.
| Answers | ||
|---|---|---|
| Item | Total number of low risk answers/Total number of answers (%) | Total number of high risk answers/ Total number of answers (%) |
| 1. Was the study’s sample a close representation of the species of bivalves of a certain geographical area? | 1/103 (1%) | 102/103 (99%) |
| 2. Was some form of random selection used to select the sample? | 10/103 (10%) | 93/103 (90%) |
| 3. Was the sample size adequate? | 2/103 (2%) | 101/103 (98%) |
| 4. Was an acceptable case definition used in the study? | ||
| a. Is it possible to trace the AMR results back to the species of bivalves of origin? | 69/103 (67%) | 34/103 (33%) |
| b. Is the site of sample collection (retail vs production sites) fully described? | 100/103 (97%) | 3/103 (3%) |
| c. Is the period of sample collection identified? | 81/103 (79%) | 22/103 (21%) |
| 5. Was the study instrument that measured the parameter of interest shown to have reliability and validity (if necessary)? | ||
| a. Did the authors refer to CLSI or EUCAST guidelines for antimicrobial susceptibility testing? | 85/103 (83%) | 18/103 (18%) |
| b. Did the authors use a control strain for antimicrobial susceptibility testing? | 46/103 (45%) | 57/103 (55%) |
| c. Was the source of the breakpoints for interpretation clearly described and was this source a CLSI or an EUCAST document? | 61/103 (59%) | 42/103 (41%) |
| 6. Was the same mode of data collection used for all subjects? | 100/103 (97%) | 3/103 (3%) |
| 7. Was the length of the shortest prevalence period for the parameter of interest appropriate? | 33/103 (32%) | 70/103 (68%) |
| 8. Were the numerator(s) and denominator(s) for the parameter of interest appropriate? | 102/103 (99%) | 1/103 (1%) |