deletions | additions       diff --git a/section_Introduction_Scanning_journal_abstracts__.tex b/section_Introduction_Scanning_journal_abstracts__.tex  index 7054f17..7d4f916 100644  --- a/section_Introduction_Scanning_journal_abstracts__.tex  +++ b/section_Introduction_Scanning_journal_abstracts__.tex 
...
\section{Introduction}  Scanning journal abstracts allows clinicians to quickly determine the relevance of a particular article to their clinical practice (Fleming, 2013). The abstract should be written clearly and sufficiently detailed such that clinicians can decide whether to read on if the article is in hand or to download an electronic version for further reading (Hopewell, 2008). A recent study found that users of biomedical literature that searched PubMed predominately viewed abstracts exclusively after reviewing titles returned from their searches. These abstract views were well over two times as likely as full-text views \cite{20157491}. However, despite the importance of abstracts to convey essential information to users of research, clear and comprehensive reporting of core study aspects remains an issue. In an effort to address concerns about the quality and clarity of abstract reporting in clinical trials, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trial (CONSORT) group developed a minimum set of essential information for inclusion in an abstract (Hopewell, 2008) . Since the CONSORT abstract extension was published in 2008, some improvement in abstract reporting has been noted but still remains an issue \cite{Can_2011}.  \\More More  recently, systematic reviews have played a growing role in decision making for clinic practice. While allowing biomedical literature users access to a higher quality of evidence, systematic reviews are still hampered by issues in the quality of abstract reporting \cite{23714302}. This prompted the release of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement that detailed a checklist of essential items to include in a systematic review abstract. \\Since Since  the extension of the PRISMA statement was published in 2013, no formal evaluation has been conducted on guideline adherence in medical journals. Only Kiriakou et. al.’s investigation of systematic review abstracts in oral implantology has been conducted to date \cite{24581704}. We, therefore, analyzed the extent to which systematic review authors reported this information in abstracts from a sample of leading oncology journals. We analyzed how well authors published in these journals adhered to the PRISMA extension guidelines for abstracts and whether this adherence had changed since the release of the PRISMA extension.