deletions | additions       diff --git a/untitled.tex b/untitled.tex  index b63d415..0fa225b 100644  --- a/untitled.tex  +++ b/untitled.tex 
...
ineligible articles. Quality and risk of bias assessment was completed in 91 (50%) of articles assessed. Most common tools used were those that were of some unique method created by the author (27.47%,n=25) and those independently assessed by authors (20.88%, n=19). In assessing risk of bias, high/medium/low scale was used most (18.97%, n=11), and quality was assessed through author created scales (29.31%, n=17).  \subsection{\textbf{Conclusions:}}  Quality and risk of bias were assessed in half of the systematic reviews and meta-analyses coded, however methods of assessment are determined by authors independently rather than following well known scales such as Jadad and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.High risk of bias and low quality studies were included in most of these studies.This analysis provides further evidence of the lack of consistency in reporting quality measures for clinical findings in the field of oncology. Differences between assessment of bias and quality reporting could negatively impact the clinical application of findings in oncology journals.  Keywords: \subsection{\textbf{Keywords:}}  bias;meta-analysis;oncology;quality;systematic review \section{Introduction} 
...