deletions | additions       diff --git a/untitled.tex b/untitled.tex  index a7a960f..519ea78 100644  --- a/untitled.tex  +++ b/untitled.tex 
...
\section{Results}  The Pubmed search resulted in 337 articles from four journals. After screening titles and abstracts, 79 were excluded because they were not SRs or meta-analyses. An additional 76 articles were excluded after full text screening. Two articles could not be retrieved after multiple attempts. A total of 182 articles were included in this study (Figure 1).  Methodological quality or risk of bias assessment was conducted in 77 42\% (77/182) of  systematic reviews (42\%) \ref{fig:FIGURE_3}. (2). Of these, 51.95\% (40/77) found either low methodological quality or high risk of bias in primary studies comprising systematic reviews. Studies with an unclear risk of bias or unknown methodological quality were reported in 41.56\% (32/77) of reviews; no issues with study quality or risk of bias were reported in 6.49\% (5/77) of cases.  Most common approaches to evaluating risk of bias or methodological quality  were the use of tools designed by authors (23\%, (23.4\%,  n=18/77). Thesecond highest used tools were those in which the other (14\%, n=11/77) and those that were under the  Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (13\%, n=10/77) \ref{fig:FIGURE_3}. Adapted measures were was  the fourth highest most commonly report standardized measure  used tools in Oncology Journals by systematic reviewers (14.3\%, n=11/77), followed by the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (10.4\%, 8/77), the Jadad scale (10.4\%, 8/77), QUADAS-2 (5.19\%, 4/77),  and was QUADAS (3.9\%, 3/77). 2. Measures adapted from previous work were reported by 13\% (10/77) 2. Other measures  used 12\%, n=9/77 \ref{fig:FIGURE_3}.  Quality or High Risk only once and are reported in Table 1 and comprised 10.4\% (8/77)  of Bias studies were isolated \ref{fig:FIGURE_4}.There the approaches used.   There  were 35 25  studies in which with  low quality or high risk of bias that  werefound and  included with (78\%, n=35/45) \ref{fig:FIGURE_4}.From 3.From  included studies, subgroup analysis was conducted in 13\%, n=11/87) \ref{fig:FIGURE_4}. n=11/77) 3.  Meta regression was used to address bias and quality problems in 9\% of the 45 articles that assessed quality \ref{fig:FIGURE_4}. 3.  Sensitivity analysis was used to address bias and quality reporting issues in 18\% of studies analyzed \ref{fig:FIGURE_4}. 3.  We examined the scales by which reviewers scored or categorized studies. This information was reported in 56 systematic reviews. For risk of bias assessments, the high/medium/low format was used most commonly (20\%, n=11/56) followed by high/low/unclear (14\%, n=8/56). Methodological quality was most commonly assessed using a 0-5 point scale (16.07\%, 9/56) followed by Good/Fair/Poor (7.14\%, 4/56) a 1-9 point scale (5.36\%, n=3/56).  Methodological quality information were articulated largely in narrative format (44\%, n=34/77) or not at all (44\%, n=34/77) 5. Additional forms of presentation included combinations of figures and narratives (5\%, n=4/77) 5. The combination of table and narrative was also used more than single formats of presentation (3\%, n=2/77) 5.  In assessing risk of bias, high/medium/low scale was used most commonly (20\%, n=11/56) followed by high/medium/unclear (14\%, n=8/56), and quality was assessed through author created scales (30\%, n=17/56) and the Jadad scale (14\%, n=8/56) \ref{fig:FIGURE_5}. Low Quality or High risk of bias studies were found in 45 studies out of the 87 studies that assessed quality \ref{fig:FIGURE_6}. There were 34 studies in which it could not be determined whether low quality or high risk of bias studies were isolated.  Quality measures were articulated largely in narrative format (44\%, n=34/77) or not at all (44\%, n=34/77) \ref{fig:FIGURE_6}. Additional forms of presentation included combinations of figures and narratives (5\%, n=4/77) \ref{fig:FIGURE_6}. The combination of table and narrative was also used more than single formats of presentation (3\%, n=2/77) \ref{fig:FIGURE_6}.  \section{Discussion/Conclusion}  This study provides a comprehensive and recent assessment of methodological quality and risk of bias assessment in journals associated with oncology. 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 87 of the 182 articles (48\%), and inclusion of studies with high risk of bias or low quality present in 35 of the 45 or 76\% of studies. This is surprisingly high in comparison to similar studies assessing risk of bias evaluations such as in Hopewell et al., where 20\% of non-Cochrane reviews neglected to report methods used. In addition the inclusion of studies with high risk of bias or low quality was also an issue, with 76\% of studies with high risk of bias or low quality studies being included. This is comparable to the proportion of trials with high risk of bias included in previous studies where 75\% of trials contained one or more trials with high risk of bias \cite{hopewell2013incorporation}. Of course Hopewell et al. used the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, which is known for its stringent criteria for methodological quality. Our study also focused only on oncology journals while the Hopewell et al. study focused on Cochrane and non-cochrane reviews across many fields.  
...