Overly stringent inclusion criteria affecting external validity

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