deletions | additions       diff --git a/textbf_Abstract_Objectives_We_evaluated__.tex b/textbf_Abstract_Objectives_We_evaluated__.tex  index 9491f1e..876b576 100644  --- a/textbf_Abstract_Objectives_We_evaluated__.tex  +++ b/textbf_Abstract_Objectives_We_evaluated__.tex 
...
\textbf{Abstract}  \\Objectives: We evaluated the use of clinical trials registries in published obstetrics and gynecological systematic reviews and meta-analyses.  \\Methods: A review of publications between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2015, from six obstetrical and gynecological journals (Obstetrics \& Gynecology, Obstetrical \& Gynecological Survey, Human Reproduction Update, Gynecologic Oncology, British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, and American Journal of Obstetrics & \&  Gynecology) was completed to identify eligible systematic reviews. All systematic reviews included after exclusions were independently reviewed to determine if clinical trials registries had been included as part of the search process. Studies that reported using a trials registry were further examined to determine whether trial data was included in the analysis. \\Results: Our initial search resulted in 292 articles, which was narrowed to 256 after exclusions. Of the 256 systematic reviews meeting our selection criteria, 47 utilized a clinical trials registry. Eleven of the 47 systematic reviews found unpublished data, and added the unpublished trial data into their results.  \\Conclusion: A majority of systematic reviews in clinical obstetrics and gynecology journals do not include clinical trials registries. 
...