deletions | additions       diff --git a/untitled.tex b/untitled.tex  index 3bf4aca..3142a83 100644  --- a/untitled.tex  +++ b/untitled.tex 
...
\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 common tools used were those adapted from other sources (24.47\%, (25\%,  n=25/91), author independently assessed (20.88\%, (21\%,  n=19/91) and unspecified (13.19\%, (13\%,  n=12/91). In assessing risk of bias, high/medium/low scale was used most (18.97\%, (19\%,  n=11/58) followed by high/medium/unclear (13.79\%, (14\%,  n=8/58), and quality was assessed through author created scales (29.31\%, (29\%,  n=17/58) and the Jadad scale (15.52\%, (16\%,  n=9/58). Low Quality or High risk of bias studies were found in 46 studies with 76\% (n=35/46) including those studies.From included studies, subgroup analysis was conducted in 17.58\%, 18\%,  meta regression in 8.79\%, 9\%,  and sensitivity analysis in 17.58 18  \%. In 37 studies reporting of low quality or high risk of bias was unknown. Quality measures were articulated largely in narrative format (47.25\%, (47\%,  n=43/91) or not at all (39.56\%, (40\%,  n=36/91). \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 means of reporting such as Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Independently developed quality scales were developed and used rather than 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 yet subgroup analyses, meta regression, and sensitivity analysis were not used to deal with inclusion of these studies.This analysis provides further evidence of the lack of consistency in reporting quality measures can also be found for clinical findings in the field of oncology. Differences between assessment of bias and quality reporting could negatively impact the clinical application of treatments and procedures presented in major oncology journals.  \subsection{\textbf{Keywords:}} 
...