This problem is addressed in PRISMA-E and MECIR. Review authors may not always consider whether results can be applied to people outside of the study population and may be, therefore, unlikely to seek out and represent the issues that affect the external validity of the review. Recruitment in clinical trials often favours certain populations and therefore evidence included insystematic reviews may not adequately represent all different groups in society. PRISMA-E and PROGRESS-plus are dedicated extensions to promote consideration of these issues in systematic reviews.
Articles that support this problem:
Equity was rarely considered in Cochrane Eyes and Vision systematic reviews and primary studies on cataract
2020 : Journal of clinical epidemiology
The prevalence of and factors associated with inclusion of non-English language studies in Campbell systematic reviews: a survey and meta-epidemiological study
2018 : Systematic reviews
Prevalence and significance of race and ethnicity subgroup analyses in Cochrane intervention reviews
2020 : Clinical trials
Sex/gender reporting and analysis in Campbell and Cochrane systematic reviews: a cross-sectional methods study
2018 : Systematic reviews
Systematic reviews need to consider applicability to disadvantaged populations: inter-rater agreement for a health equity plausibility algorithm
2012 : Bmc medical research methodology
Systematic reviews reveal unrepresentative evidence for the development of drug formularies for poor and nonwhite populations
2009 : Journal of clinical epidemiology
Equity issues were not fully addressed in Cochrane human immunodeficiency virus systematic reviews
2017 : Journal of clinical epidemiology
Is health equity considered in systematic reviews of the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group?
2008 : Arthritis care & research
How effects on health equity are assessed in systematic reviews of interventions
2010 : Cochrane database of systematic reviews
Consideration of sex and gender in Cochrane reviews of interventions for preventing healthcare-associated infections: a methodology study
2019 : Bmc health services research
Generalizability of findings from systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the Leading General Medical Journals
2020 : Journal of rehabilitation medicine
Applicability and generalisability of the results of systematic reviews to public health practice and policy: a systematic review
2010 : Trials [electronic resource]
Research on subgroups is not research on equity attributes: Evidence from an overview of systematic reviews on vaccination
2017 : International journal for equity in health
Authorship diversity among systematic reviews in eyes and vision
2020 : Systematic reviews
Lack of sex-related analysis and reporting in Cochrane Reviews: a cross-sectional study
2022 : Systematic reviews
Assessment of health equity consideration in Cochrane systematic reviews and primary studies on urolithiasis
2023 : Health science reports
Authorship diversity in Gastroenterology-related Cochrane systematic reviews: Inequities in global representation
2022 : Frontiers in medicine