This systematic review intrigued me because in addition to evaluating the quality of the primary studies and the synthesising the results, the reviewers also evaluated the generalisability of the findings.

http://www.bmj.com/content/356/bmj.j14 (open access)

They categorised the studies as “generalisable,” “probably generalisable,” and “probably not generalisable”

Fantastic concept and the results seemed robust (with good agreement between the reviewers). However, they did not reference their method. Does anyone have experience or knowledge of such evaluation and categorisation?

Prof. Kev (Kevork) Hopayian,
MD FRCGP
Clinical Professor, University of Nicosia, Cyprus
Consultant, RCGP International
http://www.angliangp.org

Prof. Kev (Kevork) Hopayian,
MD FRCGP
Clinical Professor, University of Nicosia, Cyprus
Consultant, RCGP International
Tutor, University of East Anglia, UK
General Practitioner, Suffolk, UK
Primary Care Educator, East Suffolk
RCGP Clinical Skills Assessment examiner
NHS Senior Appraiser, East Anglia
http://www.angliangp.org