This problem is addressed in ROBIS (P2 D1). Review authors may sometimes set inclusion criteria to ensure studies are as homogenous as possible. However this can sometimes affect the external validity or applicability of the review.
Articles that support this problem:
External Validity The Next Step for Systematic Reviews?
2017 : Evaluation review
The challenge of external validity in policy‐relevant systematic reviews: a case study from the field of substance misuse
2010 : Addiction
Systematic reviews need to consider applicability to disadvantaged populations: inter-rater agreement for a health equity plausibility algorithm
2012 : Bmc medical research methodology
The need to consider the wider agenda in systematic reviews and meta-analyses: breadth, timing, and depth of the evidence
2010 : Bmj
Limitations of Conclusions of Systematic Review and MetA-Analysis Because of Exclusion of Groups Most at Risk
2017 : Journal of the american geriatrics society
The Cochrane HPV vaccine review was incomplete and ignored important evidence of bias
2018 : Bmj evidence-based medicine
Validity of a Cochrane Systematic Review and meta-analysis for determining the safety of vitamin E
2017 : Bmc complementary & alternative medicine
Why are Cochrane hepato-biliary reviews undervalued by physicians as an aid for clinical decision-making?
2010 : Digestive and liver disease
Heterogeneity in search strategies among Cochrane acupuncture reviews: is there room for improvement?
2010 : Acupuncture in medicine
Striking Errors in the Methodology, Execution, and Conclusions of the Cochrane Library Review of Spinal Cord Stimulation for Low Back Pain by Traeger et al
2023 : Pain medicine
Restrictions and their reporting in systematic reviews of effectiveness: an observational study
2022 : Bmc medical research methodology