deletions | additions       diff --git a/untitled.tex b/untitled.tex  index b997c5f..acba0f7 100644  --- a/untitled.tex  +++ b/untitled.tex 
...
We formulated an 11-item quality measure abstraction manual for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We performed a systematic search for the articles through PubMed on the 18 and 26 of May 2015. 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.Studies that were excluded include meta-analyses that were not the focus of the study,scoping reviews,case reports, individual patient data meta-analyses, and narrative reviews. Differences in assessment were resolved through group consensus between the two independent reviewers. Data analyses were conducted through Microsoft Excel 2007, and STATA 13.1 software.   \subsection{\textbf{Results:}}  258 articles were identified to meet initial search criteria. Quality assessment was conducted on 182 articles after exclusion of  ineligible articles. Quality and risk of bias assessment was (50 /percent) \percent)  of articles assessed. Most common tools used were those adapted from other sources (24.47 percent, n=25/91), author independently assessed (20.88 percent, n=19/91) and unspecified (13.19 percent, n=12/91). In assessing risk of bias, high/medium/low scale was used most (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). Low Quality or High risk of bias studies were found in 46 studies with 76 percent (n=35/46) including those studies.From included studies, subgroup analysis was conducted in 17.58 percent, meta regression in 8.79 percent, and sensitivity analysis in 17.58 percent. In 37 studies reporting of low quality or high risk of bias was unknown. Quality measures were articulated largely in narrative format (47.25 percent, n=43/91) or not at all (39.56 percent, 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 CONSORT. 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:}} 
...