deletions | additions       diff --git a/textbf_Background_Systematic_reviews_bring__.tex b/textbf_Background_Systematic_reviews_bring__.tex  index 89c361d..666d7f6 100644  --- a/textbf_Background_Systematic_reviews_bring__.tex  +++ b/textbf_Background_Systematic_reviews_bring__.tex 
...
To examine the magnitude of these forms of heterogeneity among a set of primary studies, researchers may evaluate statistical heterogeneity, or the extent to which heterogeneity of study effects is present above that which would be expected by chance alone. If heterogeneity is present, researchers must decide if the primary studies for consideration are too diverse to synthesize or whether follow up analyses, such as meta-regression or sub-group analysis, may be used to explore the effects of these differences on study outcomes.  While much advise has been offered on evaluating heterogeneity, little is known about the ways that systematic reviewers actually address heterogeneity. In fact, what little we know is representative of Cochrane review groups who follow strict guidelines during the review process. Questions, however, remain regarding the practices of systematic reviewers outside of Cochrane review groups, such as researchers in clinical specialties like oncology. We,therefore, We, therefore,  examined heterogeneity assessment and analysis practices among meta-analyses in oncology research. We focused on particular methods used to detect heterogeneity and examined the ways in which heterogeneity results informed decision making. We also propose the use of evidence mapping as a tool for evaluating clinical and methodological heterogeneity both for researchers to make informed decisions regarding the distinguishing clinical or methodological features of primary studies and for readers to form conclusions regarding the nature of heterogeneity of studies included in a meta-analysis. We will first briefly acquaint the reader with the process of evidence mapping based on the work of Althuis et al. \cite{25055879}.
...