Tick the limitations that are true of your study and add what is specific to each: the detail, what you did about it, and what it means for your findings. The generator writes a lead-in and one general sentence for each type, places your own sentences beside them, and ends on what still holds. Honest templates, no AI. Free, no sign-up.
Your study
Which limitations apply?
Tick only what is true of your study. For each, add what is specific to it: the tool supplies a lead-in and one general sentence about what this kind of limitation can do. Edit the general sentence to fit.
Becomes “Despite these limitations, …”. Only claim what the evidence supports.
0
Words
0
Limitations
1 part still to write
Limitations paragraph
Tip: The general sentences are written for each type of limitation, not for your study. Read each one and edit it until it is true of your study.
To write: Tick at least one limitation above to write the paragraph.
A limitations statement is not an apology. It tells a reader how far to trust the findings. The STROBE reporting guideline asks authors of observational studies to discuss limitations, taking into account sources of potential bias or imprecision, and to discuss both the direction and the magnitude of any potential bias. Docherty and Smith’s BMJ editorial on structuring the discussion argues that readers care most about weaknesses, because every study has them, and that an unmentioned flaw can cost a paper its credibility.
That gives each limitation four jobs, which the tool’s boxes follow: name it, say what it can do to the conclusions, say what you did about it, and say what it means for how the findings should be read.
| Type | What it can do to the findings | A typical mitigation |
|---|---|---|
| Small sample | Lower power and less precise estimates; small effects may be missed | Report confidence intervals; frame the results as preliminary |
| Volunteer or convenience sampling | The sample may differ from the population it stands for | Compare the sample with known population figures |
| Observational design | Associations cannot show cause; groups may differ in unmeasured ways | Adjust for measured confounders; use cautious wording |
| Self-report measures | Recall error and socially desirable answers | Use validated scales; check against records where possible |
| Attrition | Those who left may differ from those who stayed | Compare completers with dropouts; use appropriate missing-data methods |
| Transferability (qualitative) | Findings are tied to a context and are not statistically generalizable | Describe the setting in enough detail for readers to judge fit |
“Transferability” is the qualitative counterpart of generalizability, a term from Lincoln and Guba’s work on trustworthiness in qualitative research: the writer describes the context well enough that readers can judge whether the findings apply to theirs.
“Try an example” ticks a small sample, an observational design and self-reported measures, and fills in detail, mitigation and impact for the first two. The result is a 186-word paragraph. The third limitation is deliberately left without a mitigation or impact: the checklist flags it, and the tool does not invent one. Here is the second limitation as written:
Example: one limitation from the generated paragraph
A second limitation concerns the observational design (students chose whether to attend tutoring). Without random assignment, the groups may differ in ways that were not measured, so the associations found cannot establish that one variable caused another. We adjusted for prior grades and course load. Students who sought tutoring may have been more motivated, which would make the association look stronger than it is.
The first and fourth sentences are the writer’s; the second is the tool’s general sentence for that type, and the third is the writer’s mitigation. Note that the last sentence says which way the bias could run, which is what STROBE asks for.