deletions | additions       diff --git a/section_Discussion_subsection_Abstract_Structure__.tex b/section_Discussion_subsection_Abstract_Structure__.tex  index 9f6e68c..49a9e15 100644  --- a/section_Discussion_subsection_Abstract_Structure__.tex  +++ b/section_Discussion_subsection_Abstract_Structure__.tex 
...
\subsection{Search Date}  Only 47\% of all the oncology systematic review abstracts included a search date. According to a similar study of systematic reviews from all parts of medicine, 90\% of abstracts included a search date\cite{23714302}. This suggests that room for improvement in  oncology journals are behind in with regards to  compliance with PRISMA guidelines.Despite having a positive percentage growth rate of 2.39 percent, percentage of abstracts including search dates have been consistently below 70 percent in oncology systematic review abstracts.    \subsection{Risk of Bias/Quality Assessment}  Eighty-one percent of the abstracts for oncology systematic reviews did not report any kind of risk of bias or quality assessment. We know Becuase risk of bias and methodological quality was also recored  from a related research article currently being written (Sarah) the full text of our sample of systematic reviews we know  that exactly half 50\% (update amount)  of the 182 meta-analyses and systematic reviews that we analyzed assessed risk of bias or quality within the article itself. That means that 31\% of the articles that we analyzed did an assessment but did not report that they did so in their abstracts.Thus, quality assessment and risk of bias are under-reported in oncology systematic reviews and meta-analyses.  In a recent study of test accuracy reviews, researchers found that 43\% of reviews mentioned an assessment of methodological quality in their abstracts \cite{24588874}. This means that quality assessment information within oncology abstracts is underreported when compared to reviews in other areas of medicine. \subsection{Measures of Precision}  Statistical evaluation of the results and putting the numbers into effect ratios or confidence intervals was poorly reported in oncology abstracts with only 46\% of abstracts reporting either.Comparing the three different oncology journals, The Lancet Oncology reported effect ratios and confidence intervals the least. The Journal of Clinical Oncology had the best percentage of risk ratios and/or confidence intervals reported. Again, oncology articles are behind in adhering to PRISMA guidelines.  In a similar study in periodontology and implant dentistry, researchers found that roughly half of the collected articles included confidence intervals \cite{23668725}. So, when compared to dentistry articles, oncology articles have similar poorly reported measures of precision. \subsection{Interpretations and Implications} 
...
\subsection{Future Extensions of the Current Work}  Currently, other researchers within our program are assessing the quality of abstracts for systematic reviews and meta-analyses for articles in obstetrics, pediatric oncology, and anesthesiology journals. We hope to analyze more abstracts for quality in other areas of medicine as well.