Are studies included in most meta-analyses based on a narrow range of participants? This question is mostly quoted from A New Psychology of Women (2017) by Lips, page 63:


  Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the studies included in most meta-analyses are based on a narrow range of participants (usually young, North American students) and are not reflective of the populations at large--although this limitation tends to be obscured by the combination of many studies into a single analysis (Halpern, 1995). 


I mean, this claim is more than 20 years old. Is it true today? Is there a study that examines the demographics of meta-studies at large or something related?
If it is true, is this the case for most psychology research, male-female differences or all studies in the social sciences?
Hunter and Schmidt offer a a set of procedures to correct range restriction, these are included in many packages based on their meta-analytic methodology, here are some relevant references:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/75e8/97a797dc876b785042dfd8ac4023a5fc85df.pdf
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/peps.12122/abstract
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6644262_Correcting_for_indirect_range_restriction_in_meta-analysis_Testing_a_new_meta-analytic_procedure
mypages.iit.edu/~morriss/siop2009/Le09.ppt
mypages.iit.edu/~morriss/siop2005/Oswald05.doc
https://www.corwin.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/5063_Hunter_Chapter_3.pdf
https://utsa.influuent.utsystem.edu/en/publications/implications-of-direct-and-indirect-range-restriction-for-meta-an

hth,

larry