deletions | additions       diff --git a/subsection_Comparing_Journals_When_comparing__.tex b/subsection_Comparing_Journals_When_comparing__.tex  index c3cc104..3bb12e0 100644  --- a/subsection_Comparing_Journals_When_comparing__.tex  +++ b/subsection_Comparing_Journals_When_comparing__.tex 
...
As far as quality and risk of bias assessment across the three journals, Clinical Cancer Research only mentioned quality assessment or had no assessment at all (b). The Journal of Clinical Oncology mentioned either quality or risk of bias or nothing at all, and abstracts from The Lancet Oncology were the only abstracts to mention both quality and risk of bias assessments.  As far as the presentation of data, ninety-eight abstracts (54 percent) did not report either effects or confidence intervals for data comparison (a).   When it came to reporting any results among all three journals with effect size and/or confidence intervals, The Lancet Oncology reported both 37 percent of the time; and Clinical Cancer Research reported both 48 percent of the time (b). Only the Journal of Clinical Oncology reported effect alone for 5 percent of the time. The Lancet Oncology had the highest percentage of no effect ratios or confidence intervals with 63 percent of abstracts not reporting these results.  Since 2007, effect sizes and confidence intervals have decreased at a rate of 1.19 percent and has stayed at below a 65 percent reporting rate (c).  Effect size and confidence intervals are not the only way to measure results. Abstracts could also report percentages, cost, or time-spans. One hundred and thirteen abstracts (62 percent) did not report any of these sorts of units for result comparisons (a). The Journal of Clinical Oncology had the highest percentage of these units reported at only 42 percent (b). Clinical Cancer Research and The Lancet Oncology had lower percentages of only 35 percent and 32 percent of units reported, respectively.Since 2007, the rate of units reported in oncology abstracts has not changed (c).  The conclusions of the abstracts almost always had an interpretation of the data (96 percent) (a).  In the conclusion of each abstract, interpretations of the data existed in 100 percent of the abstracts in Clinical Cancer Research (b). Interpretations were included in 97 percent of the Journal of Clinical Oncology abstracts, and The Lancet Oncology had the least number of abstracts with interpretations with 91.5 percent.  Interpretations included in oncology The Journal of Clinical Oncology had the highest percentage of  abstracts stayed between 92 and 100 that included an implication with 58 percent. The Lancet Oncology was not far behind with 54  percent between the years 2007 and 2015 of their abstracts containing implications,  and Clinical Cancer Research  had a low rate the lowest percentage  of change (0.36 percent) over that time period (c). included implications with 47 percent (b).  While 96 percent of abstracts included an interpretation in their conclusions, only 102 abstracts (56 percent) included an implication with those interpretations (a). The Journal of Clinical Lancet  Oncology had the highest percentage of abstracts that included an implication strengths or limitations  with 58 percent. The Lancet Oncology was not far behind with 54 32  percent of their abstracts containing implications, and (b).  Clinical Cancer Research had the lowest second highest  percentageof included implications  with 47 percent (b). Since 2007, there has been a steady increase in oncology abstracts including implications at a rate 24 percent, and Journal  of 2.46 percent (c). Clinical Oncology had the lowest percentage of 20 percent.  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).