deletions | additions       diff --git a/untitled.tex b/untitled.tex  index f0489f5..b9c8a27 100644  --- a/untitled.tex  +++ b/untitled.tex 
...
\textbf{Abstract}   Abstract \textbf{Background:} The use of .  Background: The use \textbf{Methods:} A PubMed search  of . six oncology journals was conducted looking for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. This search strategy was adapted from a previously established search method (Montori 2005). Covidence.org was used then used to screen manuscripts based on title and abstract. Two coders then independently evaluated the manuscripts for 10 different elements. The evidence-based mapping method heterogeneity was applied to a manuscript chosen by the author. Stata 13.1 was used analyze the coders data and was then searched for trends in heterogeneity use.  Methods: A PubMed \textbf{Results:} The use of literature  search of six 4  oncology journals was conducted looking for yielded 182  systematic reviews and and/or  meta-analyses. This search strategy was adapted from a previously established search method (Montori 2005). Covidence.org was used then Of these papers, 50\%  used to screen manuscripts based on title and abstract. Two coders then independently evaluated the manuscripts for 10 different elements. The evidence-based mapping method quanitative  heterogeneity was applied tests  to a manuscript chosen by the author. Stata 13.1 was used analyze the coders data and was then searched assess  for trends in heterogeneity use. heterogeneity.  Results: The use \textbf{Conclusion:} It is the impression  of literature search this study that the use  of 4 quantitative and qualitative heterogeneity measurement tools are underutilized in the four  oncology journals yielded 182 systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses. Of these papers, 50% evaluated and should be  used quanitative in meta-analyses to reduce the risk of spurious findings being integrated into medical practice. This tool will help determine whether or not a meta-analysis can be performed prior to investing time in said meta-analysis. This is preferable to performing a quantitative measurement of  heterogeneity tests after the fact  to assess for heterogeneity. indicate whether or not the study analysis is trustworthy.  Conclusion: It is the impression of this study that the use of quantitative and qualitative heterogeneity measurement tools are underutilized in the four oncology journals evaluated and should be used in meta-analyses to reduce the risk of spurious findings being integrated into medical practice. This tool will help determine whether or not a meta-analysis can be performed prior to investing time in said meta-analysis. This is preferable to performing a quantitative measurement of heterogeneity after the fact to indicate whether or not the study analysis is trustworthy.  Keywords: \textbf{Keywords:}  Heterogeneity, Meta-analysis, Systematic Review, Evidence map; Oncology, Palliative care