deletions | additions       diff --git a/When_comparing_the_different_abstract__1.tex b/When_comparing_the_different_abstract__1.tex  index a47d84a..801b4d5 100644  --- a/When_comparing_the_different_abstract__1.tex  +++ b/When_comparing_the_different_abstract__1.tex 
...
\subsection{Change over Time}  When comparing the different abstract styles among journals, the \textit{Journal of Clinical Oncology} had the highest percentage of structured vs. unstructured abstracts at over 90 percent when compared to 82 percent for \textit{Clinical Cancer Research} and 59 percent for \textit{The Lancet Oncology}. Since 2007, oncology abstracts have been becoming less structured at a rate of 1.81 percent (Figure).  Out of all of the articles, only about half of the abstracts (47 percent) followed PRISMA’s guideline to list the dates of the searches (Figure a). Failure to list search dates for Clinical Cancer Reseach was 47 percent, 49 percent for Journal of Clinical Oncology, and 44 percent for The Lancet Oncology (Figure b). Since 2007, oncology abstracts for systematic reviews has had an increase of search dates by 2.39 percent despite a 27.9 percent drop between 2013 and 2014 (c). 
...
Strengths and/or limitations were not reported in the data collection or analysis in one hundred thirty-eight abstracts (76 percent) (a). The Lancet Oncology had the highest percentage of abstracts that included strengths or limitations with 32 percent (b). Clinical Cancer Research had the second highest percentage with 24 percent, and Journal of Clinical Oncology had the lowest percentage of 20 percent. Since 2007, the inclusion of strengths and limitations in oncology abstracts has declined at a rate of 2.16 percent with a steep decline in reporting after 2013 (c).  Reporting of any funding information was scared, as only 25 abstracts (14 percent) included the information in their abstracts (a). Clinical Cancer Research abstracts never included any funding information (b). The Journal of Clinical Oncology had only 5 abstracts (4 percent) that included funding information, and The Lancet Oncology had the highest percentage of information about funding with 33 percent (20 abstracts) including funding information. From 2007 to 2015, funding reporting fluctuated between 0 and 30 percent with little change in percentage rate (c).