deletions | additions       diff --git a/untitled.tex b/untitled.tex  index d6e3d23..fed8404 100644  --- a/untitled.tex  +++ b/untitled.tex 
...
\subsection{\textbf{Keywords:}}  bias;meta-analysis;oncology;quality;systematic review  \section{Introduction}  The use of systematic reviews and meta-analyses has become of increasing importance in evidence based medicine for clinicians to seek out consistent and reliable information on treatments and care guidelines in medicine \cite{14764293}. In part, the reasoning for reliance on systematic reviews and meta-analyses is that both are considered to be helpful due to pooling of results of multiple studies to provide a broader view of information of interest, and by broadening the pool of data, the idea is that bias would become less of an issue in studies \cite{7500513}. Quality assessment is a crucial component of any study and consequences of inadequate quality reporting or evaluation within research studies, can lead to exaggerated treatment effects when bias of participants is not taken into account in study design \cite{gurusamy2009assessment}. Assessing benefits and harms of interventional procedures is crucial in clinical application of trials and it is of great value to determine whether studies are conducted after assessing bias or low quality of studies. Many scales have been designed to address concerns about high risk of bias or low quality in earlier studies, however, recent evidence indicates scales may not be the best means of assessing quality measures, and rather certain design features should be viewed to give a clearer picture of bias in trials \cite{lohr1999assessing}. The \textit{Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Review of Interventions} have been update continually to address changes in assessment of quality \cite{Higgins_2011}. Similarly the \textit{Jadad} grading scale has also been designed as a means of unifying quality measures amongst clinical trials \cite{jadad1996assessing}. The first major guideline for reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses came out in 1996 and was referred to as the Quality of Reporting of Meta-Analyses (QUORUM), and has been followed thereafter by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement \cite{Moher_2011}. After publication of the QUORUM statement there was an improvement in how items from the checklist were reported and quality of reporting improved in critical care literature\cite{Delaney_2007}. Despite a clear move toward progress in reporting of quality measures, there still remains significant differences in designs and gradings between each study\cite{higgins2008cochrane}. According to The Cochrane Collaboration, criteria for evaluation of bias in studies should be domain-based and in fact that further analysis would be needed if high risk of bias or low quality studies are included \cite{higgins2008cochrane}. Reporting of quality measures and methodological quality assessment is crucial for clinicians to have the best information for patient care.   The aim of our study was to assess how quality and risk of bias are evaluated in a sample of oncology systematic reviews and meta-analyses, how quality and risk of bias are graded, whether high risk of bias or low quality studies tend to be included, and if so, what are the methods of analyzing that are used to deal with high risk of bias and low quality. In addition we assessed how this information is reported within studies analyzed.  \section{Methods}  \subsection{Search Criteria and Eligibility}  
...