deletions | additions       diff --git a/untitled.tex b/untitled.tex  index 6f92b09..ca7fe41 100644  --- a/untitled.tex  +++ b/untitled.tex 
...
Within this data set, quality or risk of bias assessment was conducted in 91 articles (50\%) \ref{fig:FIGURE_3}. Most common tools used were those adapted from other sources (24.47\%, n=25/91) such as other authors \ref{fig:FIGURE_3}. The second highest used tools were those in which the author independently assessed (20.88\%, n=19/91) and those that were unspecified (13.19\%, n=12/91) \ref{fig:FIGURE_3}. QUORUM was the fourth highest used tool in Oncology Journals and was used 12.09\%, n=11/91\ref{fig:FIGURE_3}.  Quality or High Risk of Bias studies were isolated \ref{fig:FIGURE_4}.There were 35 studies in which low quality or high risk of bias were found and included with (76.09\%, n=35/46) \ref{fig:FIGURE_4}.From included studies, subgroup analysis was conducted in 17.58\%, n=16/91) \ref{fig:FIGURE_4}. Meta regression was used to address bias and quality problems in 8.79\% of the 46 articles that assessed quality \ref{fig:FIGURE_4}. Sensitivity analysis was used to address bias and quality reporting issues in 17.58\% of studies analyzed \ref{fig:FIGURE_4}.   In assessing risk of bias, high/medium/low scale was used most commonly (18.97\%, n=11/58) followed by high/medium/unclear (13.79\%, n=8/58), and quality was assessed through author created scales (29.31\%, n=17/58) and the Jadad scale (15.52\%, n=9/58) \ref{fig:FIGURE_5}. Low Quality or High risk of bias studies were found in 46 studies out of the 91 studies that assessed quality \ref{fig:FIGURE_5}. There were 37 studies in which it could not be determined whether Low  Quality measures were articulated largely in narrative format (47.25\%, n=43/91) or not at all (39.56\%, n=36/91). n=36/91) \ref{fig:FIGURE_6}.  Additional forms of presentation included combinations of figures and narratives (4.40\%, n=4/91) \ref{fig:FIGURE_7}. The combination of table and narrative was also used more than single formats of presentation (3.30\%, n=3/91) \ref{fig:FIGURE_7}. \section{Discussion/Conclusion}  Our main findings were that comprehensive reporting of quality measures in systematic reviews and meta-analyses in major oncology journals was moderate to low, with actual assessment of methodological being present in 91 of the 182 articles (50\%), and inclusion of studies with high risk of bias or low quality present in 35 of the 46 or 76\% of studies. In addition the inclusion of studies with high risk of bias or low quality was not the only problem in these studies, but rather than out of the included articles, further analysis was not conducted to address additional bias. The completeness of quality measure reporting in oncology journals appears to be lower compared to reports in related fields such as orthodontics in which PRISMA results were 64.1\% compared to the quality assessment found in oncology journals of 50\% \cite{tunis2013association}. The use of high risk of bias or low quality appears to not be the focus in the assessment of quality in oncology journals.  
...