deletions | additions       diff --git a/untitled.tex b/untitled.tex  index 654d169..a7aa486 100644  --- a/untitled.tex  +++ b/untitled.tex 
...
\subsection{\subsection{}  }  \section{Abstract and Key Words}  \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:}} 
...
Within this data set, quality or risk of bias assessment was conducted in 91 articles (50 percent) \ref{fig:FIGURE_3}. Most common tools used were those adapted from other sources (24.47 percent, n=25/91) such as other authors \ref{fig:FIGURE_6}. The second highest used tools were those in which the author independently assessed (20.88 percent, n=19/91) and those that were unspecified (13.19 percent, n=12/91) \ref{fig:FIGURE_6} \ref{fig:FIGURE_7} . QUORUM was the fourth highest used tool in Oncology Journals and was used 12.09 percent, n=11/91 \ref{fig:FIGURE_6}.  In assessing risk of bias, high/medium/low scale was used most commonly (18.97 percent, n=11/58) followed by high/medium/unclear (13.79 percent, n=8/58), and quality was assessed through author created scales (29.31 percent, n=17/58) and the Jadad scale (15.52 percent, n=9/58) \ref{fig:FIGURE_8} \ref{fig:FIGURE_9}. Low Quality or High risk of bias studies were found in 46 studies out of the 91 studies that assessed quality \ref{fig:FIGURE_10. There were 37 studies in which it could not be determined whether Low Quality or High Risk of Bias studies were isolated \ref{ig:FIGURE_11} \ref{fig:FIGURE_12}.   There were 35 studies in which low quality or high risk of bias were found and included with 76.09 percent (n=35/46) \ref{fig:FIGURE_14}.From included studies, subgroup analysis was conducted in 17.58 percent n=16/91) \ref{fig:FIGURE_15}. Meta regression was used to address bias and quality problems in 8.79 percent of the 46 articles that assessed quality \ref{fig:FIGURE_16}. Sensitivity analysis was used to address bias and quality reporting issues in 17.58 percent of studies analyzed \ref{fig:FIGURE_17}.   Quality measures were articulated largely in narrative format (47.25 percent, n=43/91) or not at all (39.56 percent, n=36/91). Additional forms of presentation included combinations of figures and narratives (4.40 percent, n=4/91) \ref{fig:FIGURE_18}. The combination of table and narrative was also used moreso more  than single formats of presentation (3.30 percent, n=3/91) \ref{fig:FIGURE_18}. \section{Discussion} 
...