deletions | additions       diff --git a/untitled.tex b/untitled.tex  index fa4e434..a6ebbbc 100644  --- a/untitled.tex  +++ b/untitled.tex 
...
Abstract  Objective: To assess the quality   \section{}  Introduction  \section{}  Methods  1.1 Search Criteria   We conducted a PubMed search using the following search string: 
...
For our review process we utilized Covidence (Covidence.Org) for the initial screening process.We screened articles based on the abstract and title. Our focus in this study was to look at methodological quality in systemic reviews and meta-analyses in Oncology Journals. The full text versions of articles were imported via Endnote and stored in PDF format from the Internet and through inter-library loan. Several coding keys were designed for each study and pilot tested on a convenience sample of articles. The articles were stored on Google Drive, where we also stored the coding sheets and documents related to our study such as team assignments, article coding assignments, and abstraction manuals. There was a training session designed for individual coders in which 3 articles from various journal types were coded as a group. Also the pair assignments for coding were instructed to code three articles independently and the data from that convenience sample was analyzed for inter-rater agreement using Kappa statistic. During that training session, the team also came to a consensus and modified the abstraction manuals to settle disagreements found between the coding of two coders.  The systematic reviews and meta-analyses chosen for our study were required to be of similar methodological standing and meet strict criteria found in Cochrane systematic reviews. Our exclusions included studies such as meta-analyses that were not the primary aim of the study, narrative reviews instead of systematic reviews, reviews of reviews, case reports, study collected data, case-control studies, and individual patient data meta-analyses.