deletions | additions       diff --git a/untitled.tex b/untitled.tex  index e385022..d91d280 100644  --- a/untitled.tex  +++ b/untitled.tex 
...
The use of systematic reviews and meta-analyses has become increasingly important in evidence-based medicine as clinicians seek reliable information on treatments and care guidelines in their medical practice \cite{14764293}. Since systematic reviews synthesize evidence from multiple studies, clinicians are able to better understand the individual trials comprising the review as well as the efficacy of the therapy summarized across all available, relevant evidence. One essential feature that lends confidence to the findings of a review is an appraisal of the methodology of studies comprising the review. In cases where systematic reviewers have concluded that primary studies are of high methodological quality or have low potential for biased outcomes, clinicians can have more confidence in the study findings. For example, Yang et al. evaluated the toxicity and efficacy of chemotherapy plus cetuximab in relation to chemotherapy alone in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. The systematic review comprised of four trials. A risk of bias assessment of these trials was conducted, and the authors concluded that risk of bias was low for overall survival and one-year survival rates but high for all other outcomes due to a lack of blinding. Hence, the reviewers concluded that chemotherapy plus cetuximab was better than chemotherapy alone for improving overall survival; the risk of bias assessment played an important role in the interpretation of the summary effect.     Many scales are designed in response to concerns regarding methodological quality among primary studies; however, recent evidence indicates scales may not be the best way to appraise studies. studies \cite{juni2001assessing}\cite{juni1999hazards}.  Rather, certain design features should be reviewed to provide a clearer picture of bias in trials \cite{lohr1999assessing}.The \textit{Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Review of Interventions} is continually updated to improve the assessment of methodological quality in clinical studies and advocates for appraising the risk of bias of all primary studies included for review \cite{higgins2011cochrane}. Major reporting guidelines for systematic reviews have been published and suggest some form of quality appraisal. The first guideline, published in 1996, was referred to as the Quality of Reporting of Meta-Analyses (QUORUM) and advocated use of a methodological quality measures tool for appraisal. More recently, however, QUORUM's predecessor, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), called for evaluating the risk of bias of primary studies. This recommendation, consistent with the Cochrane Collaboration, accounts for criticisms of the quality scales, including that certain components of these tools often have no known role in contributing to the validity of findings, such as whether investigators reported oversight by an institutional review board. Inclusion of such items can artificially inflate the overall quality score of a particular study.   Despite a clear move toward progress in this area, there are still significant differences in quality assessment practices between systematic reviews \cite{higgins2008cochrane}. In fact, little is known about the application of methodological quality or risk of bias measures in clinical specialties like oncology. To address this issue, we conducted a study of the oncology literature to assess how often quality and risk of bias assessments were used in oncology systematic reviews, determine the prevalence of approaches reported by the authors, and examine the ways that such evaluations are incorporated into the reviews.