deletions | additions       diff --git a/untitled.tex b/untitled.tex  index 9de7040..c252e78 100644  --- a/untitled.tex  +++ b/untitled.tex 
...
\section{Abstract and Key Words}  \subsection{{\textbf{Aim:}}}To \subsection{{\textbf{Aim:}}}. To  evaluate the reporting and utilization of methodological quality measures in addressing low quality and risk of bias in major oncology journals. \subsection{\textbf{Methods:}}  We performed a search of systematic reviews from high impact factor journals in oncology from 2007 to 2015 through PubMed. Covidence was used to screen articles based on the title and abstract. The methodological quality and reporting of risk of bias were evaluated by three rounds of coding from two independent reviewers using the same checklist.Differences in assessment were resolved through group consensus between the two independent reviewers.   \subsection{\textbf{Results:}}  Quality assessment was studied on 182 articles after exclusion. Quality and risk of bias assessment was (50\%) of articles assessed. Most More  commontools used  were those tools  adapted from other sources (25\%, n=25/91), (25\%),  author independently assessed (21\%, n=19/91) (21\%)  and unspecified (13\%, n=12/91). (13\%).  In assessing risk of bias, bias a  high/medium/low scale was used most (19\%, n=11/58) (19\%,)  followed by high/medium/unclear (14\%, n=8/58), and quality (14\%). Quality  was assessed through author created scales (29\%, n=17/58) (29\%)  and the Jadad scale (16\%, n=9/58). (16\%).  Low Quality or High risk of bias studies were found in 46 studies with 76\% (n=35/46) including those studies.From studies. From  included studies, subgroup analysis was conducted in 18\%, meta regression meta-regression  in 9\%, and sensitivity analysis in 18\%. In 37 studies reporting of low quality or high Quality and  risk of bias was unknown. not reported in 37 studies.  Quality measures were articulatedlargely  in narrative format (47\%, n=43/91) (47\%)  or not at all (40\%, n=36/91). (40\%).  \subsection{\textbf{Conclusions:}}  Quality and risk of bias were assessed in half of the systematic reviews and meta-analyses coded, available studies,  however methods of assessment are determined by authorsindependently  rather than followingwell known scales means of reporting such as  Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Independently Author  developed quality scales weredeveloped and  used rather than well-known scales such as the  Jadad and or  Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.High Scale. High  risk of bias and low quality studies were included in most of these studies yet subgroup analyses, meta regression, meta-regression,  and sensitivity analysis were not used to deal with inclusion of these studies.This not. This  analysis provides further evidence of the lack of consistency in reporting for inconsistent  quality measures can also be found measure reporting  for clinical findings in the field of oncology. oncology manuscripts.  Differences betweenassessment of  bias assessment  and quality reporting could negatively impact the clinical application of treatments and procedures presented misdirect intervention results  inmajor  oncology journals. \subsection{\textbf{Keywords:}}  meta-analysis;oncology;quality; risk of bias;systematic review  \section{Introduction} 
...