deletions | additions       diff --git a/section_Discussion_Our_results_point__.tex b/section_Discussion_Our_results_point__.tex  index f607da9..c5c92ae 100644  --- a/section_Discussion_Our_results_point__.tex  +++ b/section_Discussion_Our_results_point__.tex 
...
\section{Discussion}  Our results point out 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 systematic review abstract all articles were found to be missing multiple items. On average we found that SRs reported only 8 of the possible 17. The 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.   One way to increase the quality of abstracts is to have authors present the information in a structed structured  form. Structured abstracts have been found to contain more information, be easier to read, are easier to search, and are welcomed by readers (Hartley 2014). Additionally structured abstracts are also favored by publishers as “over 50\% of the papers with more detailed abstracts… [are] subsequently published” (von Hardenberg 2013). Oncology journals requiring structured abstracts for submission could increase the rate from the 83\% that we found to the 97.9\% found in oral implantology journals found by Kiriakou 2014. Since From the time  the PRISMA for abstracts guidelines were published in 2013 we noticed a decrease in the mean summary score for SRs from The Lancet Oncology while the Journals of clinical oncology first  decreased then followed by an  increased the following year.
...