deletions | additions       diff --git a/Our_results_show_that_searches__.tex b/Our_results_show_that_searches__.tex  index 816df94..fb14fa1 100644  --- a/Our_results_show_that_searches__.tex  +++ b/Our_results_show_that_searches__.tex 
...
Our results show that searches of clinical trials registries are not used in a majority of 256 obstetrical and gynecological systematic reviews. Clinical trials registries contain studies with unpublished data, and the inclusion of these studies is necessary to attain accurate answers to clinical questions. The exclusion of unpublished studies and data, increases the likelihood of a systematic reviews having significant results, which simultaneously increases the risk of publication bias. Publication bias produces inaccurate study results, and reduces the physician's ability to use research in their clinical decision-making.   Our analysis found that 47 of 256 (18\%) obstetrical and gynecological systematic reviews conducted a search of a clinical trials registry. This is a much higher percentage than what was found in the neurological literature by Sinnett (6\%) and includes almost four times as many systematic reviews in the analysis \cite{Sinnett_2015}. Our findings are similar to the results found in emergency medicine, which showed 19\% of studies searched trials registries. Thirty-five percent of studies from high impact general medical journals reported searching trials registries, which roughly doubles the amount that we found in the obstetrical and gynecological  literature. Overall their use is still quite low. In addition to increasing the use of clinical trial registry searches, there is also a need to assess publication bias in the obstetrical and gynecological systematic reviews. By better understanding the prevalence of publication bias present in the literature, the consequences of not using clinical trials registry searches may be better understood. Furthermore, a reassessment of publication bias in systematic reviews that did not search clinical trials registries is also necessary to determine if there are noticeable differences in results.   Authors have many factors to consider before beginning a literature search, but as shown in our results, searching clinical trials registries is not high on the priority list. Analyzing the frequency of clinical trial registry searches in medical literature is important, but determining why authors of systematic reviews and meta-analyses are not using trials registries is equally valuable. Without addressing the barriers that deter authors from performing clinical trials registry searches, there will not be an increase in the number of searches conducted in systematic reviews.