deletions | additions       diff --git a/section_Discussion_Our_results_point__.tex b/section_Discussion_Our_results_point__.tex  index c5c92ae..219caac 100644  --- a/section_Discussion_Our_results_point__.tex  +++ b/section_Discussion_Our_results_point__.tex 
...
\section{Discussion}  Our results point out suggest  numerous points of weakness in the quality of abstracts from systematic reviews published in high impact factor oncology journals. Of the 17 items Beller et al. reports as important to be included in a from the PRISMA extension for abstracts, no  systematic review abstract in our sample contained  all articles were found to be missing multiple items. abstract elements.  On average we found that SRs reported only 8 of the possible 17. The areas Areas  that were most lacking include search language (12/182), Registration number (0/182), funding source (25/182), and strengths and limitations (44/182). When comparing our results with that of previous studies it is evident that abstracts from systematic reviews in oncology could be improved. One example is of this is with regards to description of the search that was performed. For systematic reviews the search that is preform greatly determines the outcome of the study is it is important that pertinent details are easily accessible in the abstract. Beller et al. found in their study that 90\% of abstracts included a search date and 60\% included the data bases that were searched. Those numbers are much higher than the 47\% for search date and 49\% for listing databases that we found in oncology abstracts. Another important part of a systematic review is the risk of bias assessment. The 19\% (?/182) that we found to mention a study quality or risk of bias assessment was less than half of the systematic reviews that included an assessment in their article (91ish/182). This 19\% is also much lower than the 43\% found by Ochodo 2014 across all areas of medicine.  
...