FormerIP says,  "I'd be fine with that, but this should not be done so as to ram home the idea that the earlier research is superceded." That's what I did in the version that I posted. But we have to consider the fact that these research reviews each looked at a different corpus, which isn't clear in the current version. Here is what Cochrane 2006 says:
 "Inclusion criteria: Adults with a primary diagnosis of anxiety disorder (or corresponding to another diagnostic criteria including Diagnostic and Statistical ofMental disorders (DSM), International Classification of Disease -9(ICD-9) or ICD-10 clinical descriptions or research diagnostic criteria for neurotic disorders) with or without another comorbid psychiatric conditions, irrespective of gender, age, race or nationality."
The authors' criterion for inclusion was that the individuals in the study have been diagnosed with an anxiety disorder. They were psychiatric patients. That's why they excluded for consideration 46 of the 50 studies on anxiety that they found. They only wanted those studies on adults with a specific diagnosis: "Using the diagnostic criteria for psychiatric disorder (DSM or ICD classification) and limited to include only Randomised Controlled Trials, 46 studies were excluded from the early phase." Of the four studies that remained, one was on TM. Cochrane looked at a single study on TM.

Eppley looked at every study on TM that related to anxiety. Most of these were nonclinical studies, that is, they included subjects that hadn't been diagnosed with an anxiety disorder. These studies, both meditation and relaxation, most commonly used the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, a standardized assessment of anxiety levels that's been validated in hundreds of studies, to assess the level of anxiety in the subjects. His meta-analysis included 35 studies on TM. In sum, the best way to represent these sources is to make it clear that they were looking at different populations of subjects, and hence, different groups of studies.