deletions | additions       diff --git a/textbf_Results_textbf_Literature_search__.tex b/textbf_Results_textbf_Literature_search__.tex  index 30e15f5..df7d368 100644  --- a/textbf_Results_textbf_Literature_search__.tex  +++ b/textbf_Results_textbf_Literature_search__.tex 
...
Table 1 from the evidence mapping method from (Althius 2014) was applied to a systematic review, Maltoni et al. This qualitative method of me . (not done with this one yet, i'm figuring out how to format it in excell)  \textbf{Second Objective}  Table 2 compares population and study design characteristics. Of the 11 studies included in this quality assessment 7 include antipsychotics (Group A) in their definition of sedatives used in end of life care, while the remaining 4 exclude antipsychotic use (Group B). In Group A, studies were mainly treated for dyspnea/pain/delirium equally (71%), (71\%),  focused on patients over the age of 65 (86%), (86\%),  do not report length of sedative use (57%), (57\%),  were of “Fair” quality (71%), (71\%),  and located in a Hospice facility (71%) (71\%)  (Table 1). Some population and study design characteristics of Group B differ from those of Group A. Group B differs in a higher percentage of papers treating for dypnea/pain (100%), (100\%),  focus on patients younger than 65 (100%), (100\%),  including all study settings equally (25%), (25\%),  report length of sedative use (75%), (75\%),  and has a ‘Fair-Poor’ quality (75%). (75\%).  Both groups are similar in that they are mainly centered in Europe, examine both genders, and utilize a retrospective study design (table 1).Consort guidelines Table 2 uses the consort guidelines to explore further study design variability. Certain portions of the consort guidelines could not be applied to the Maltoni et al. manuscript due to the fact that the study does not meet the randomly controlled trial definition. Consort guidelines applied to Group A reveals that 71% 71\%  described the eligibility of the patients, 86% 86\%  defined the intervention, /86% /86\%  outlined the primary outcome, 43% 43\%  outlined the secondary outcome, 29% 29\%  listed adverse side effects, and all study’s conclusions were consistent with the results (Table 3). In Group B 75% 75\%  described the eligibility of the patients, 75% 75\%  defined the intervention, 75% 75\%  outlined the primary outcome, 50% 50\%  outlined the secondary outcome, none listed adverse side effects, and all study’s conclusions were consistent with the results (Table 3).
...