How explicable are differences between reviews that appear to address a similar research question? A review of reviews of physical activity interventions

Table 2 The reasons that we deduced why studies may have been excluded from each review

Review	Included^a	Publication date	Population outside scope of review	Intervention outside scope of review	Outcomes outside scope of review	Design outside scope of review	Reason for exclusion is unclear
Dobbins and Beyers, 1999	6	13	0	13	0	8	0
Fogelholm and Lahti Koski, 2002	4	6	0	3	18	1	2
Jackson, 2005a	0	2	0	25	24	16	0
Jackson, 2005b	0	2	0	25	6	16	0
King, 1998	7	6	0	1	0	0	12
Pate et al., 2000	3	3	20	3	0	1	0
Murphy and Bauman, 2007	3	0	0	22	0	0	2
Sharpe, 2003	14	2	2	0	0	1	7

^aThis analysis is based on 26 studies: it excludes the two studies without available abstracts online.
Categories are non-exclusive: there can be more than one reason why a primary study was not included in a review.

ISSN: 2046-4053