deletions | additions       diff --git a/textbf_Results_textbf_Literature_search__.tex b/textbf_Results_textbf_Literature_search__.tex  index 25ce40e..2864b7e 100644  --- a/textbf_Results_textbf_Literature_search__.tex  +++ b/textbf_Results_textbf_Literature_search__.tex 
...
The Pubmed search resulted in 337 articles from four journals. After Covidence screening for systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses 79 were exclude search. Coder consensus excluded 76 articles which met the definition of systematic review and/or meta-analysis, yet were better categorized into other study types (Individual patient data study, human trials, Histologic studies, Genetic studies, letters to the editor, and Genomic microarray meta analyses). Additionally 2 studies could not be retrieved. In total 182 manuscripts were analyzed for heterogeneity (Figure 1).   \textbf{Stata 13.1 Heterogeneity assessment}  Heterogeneity was utilized in 50\text{%}(91) 50%(91)  of all manuscripts analyzed utilized some form or combination of quantitative heterogeneity test (Figure 2). A random-effects model was the most common meta-analysis used 23%(42), next came both fixed and random-effect models 18%(33), fixed-effects was used in 7%(13) of the manuscripts, and lastly a mixed-effects model was used in 0.92%(2) of the available manuscripts (Figure 3). This leaves roughly 50%(91) of available manuscripts with no meta-analysis model in use to quantitatively determine heterogeneity (Figure 3). Of the 42%(76) which used the random-effects model, 23%(18) used that model without performing a heterogeneity test to confirm the need for a random-effects model. 12%(22) of the manuscripts changed from the fixed-effects meta-analysis model to the random-effects after a heterogeneity test. The significance level most used was a 5% p-value with a 61%(111) occurrence and 0.1%, 1%, 20% as the least frequently used with 2%(4), 4%(8), and 2%(4) occurrences respectively. A forest plot was the most used heterogeneity plot with 40%(73) while 1%(2) used a forest and a L’Abbe heterogeneity plot. Out of the manuscripts which created a heterogeneity plot 41%(37) actually presented them. Of the three tests designed to investigate heterogeneity (Subgroup, Meta-regression, and Sensitivity Analyses), Subgroup analysis was used the most 22%(40), Sensitivity analysis was second 18%(33), and Meta-regression was used the least 8%(15) (Figure 4). It was found that 19%() of the available manuscripts wrote about heterogeneity, but never actually calculated it. 57%(104) of manuscripts did not find significant heterogeneity, 2%(4) found enough evidence of heterogeneity to disregard “some” of the meta-analysis, 4%(7) found significant heterogeneity, and 37%(67) did not know whether or not there was too much heterogeneity present to perform a meta-analysis.Summarization of evidence mapping efforts \textbf{First Objective}  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) 
...