deletions | additions       diff --git a/section_Conclusions_As_far_as__.tex b/section_Conclusions_As_far_as__.tex  index 5b4df61..5d4740e 100644  --- a/section_Conclusions_As_far_as__.tex  +++ b/section_Conclusions_As_far_as__.tex 
...
\section{Conclusions}  As far as Concerning  thefollowing of  PRISMA guidelines, extension for abstract reporting,  the abstracts of oncology systematic reviews and meta-analyses leave much to could  be desired. Across the board, more clearly written to provide critical information to inform decision making. In particular,  these abstracts areseverely  lacking the inclusion of strengths and limitations, funding information, and risk of bias and or methodological  quality assessment. With the exception of funding information, Structured  abstractswithin \textit{The Lancet Oncology}  are the most behind in adhering known  to PRISMA guidelines include more information and should be considered  for abstract quality. In fact, since the publication all study types by oncology journals. Furthermore, adoption  of the PRISMA guidelines extension  forabstracts,  abstracts for systematic reviews within The Lancet Oncology have been declining in quality while abstracts from other journals have been improving in quality. bt journal editors would encourage a more thoughtful approach to abstract writing.  We hope that this study encourages authors and editors of oncology systematic reviews to improve the quality of their abstracts through the adoption of the PRISMA guidelines. Ultimately, the improvement of abstract quality within oncology systematic reviews will lead to a greater flow of information, a better understanding, and more publications proposing innovative clinical changes.