deletions | additions       diff --git a/section_Conclusions__.tex b/section_Conclusions__.tex  index 70b17cc..0009ddf 100644  --- a/section_Conclusions__.tex  +++ b/section_Conclusions__.tex 
...
\section{Conclusions}  Possible sources of error  We are confident that there were no errors in the coding of whether abstracts were structured or unstructured, included databases or search dates, or mentioned study quality or risk of bias because the coding was objective and straightforward. However, there were several disagreements in the more subjective coding between researchers, such as in the definitions of participants, interventions, comparators, and outcomes in the objective statements of articles. However, by coding as a team, we came to decisions where both parties could agree.  Coding for inclusion criteria was difficult because it was more subjective. Even though two researchers agreed on definitions by the time that results were tabulated, the split down the middle for comparators and publication statuses could be either a result of authors not following PRISMA guidelines or the result of differing opinions of the two researchers for this study. Either way, care should be taken in the future for authors to clearly define these criteria and include them in their abstracts.  Coding for units was difficult because it was more subjective. Even though two researchers agreed on definitions by the time that results were tabulated, tabulated number of abstracts including units might be slightly higher or lower than another pair making the same analysis and could be the result of differing opinions of the definitions of units for the two researchers for this study. Either way, care should be taken in the future for authors to clearly define these criteria and include them in their abstracts.  Interpretation of the results was relatively easy to code compared to what implications of a result meant. The authors had a rough start trying to define what were considered implications of a study and what were not. However, the authors did come to a consensus, so the coding should be consistent. There might b a couple of accidental inconsistencies.  The authors had a rough start trying to define what were considered strengths and limitations of a study and what were not. However, the authors did come to a consensus, so the coding should be consistent. There might b a couple of accidental inconsistencies.  Future Extensions of the Current Work   Currently, other researchers within our program are assessing the quality of abstracts for systematic reviews and meta-analyses for articles in obstetrics, pediatric oncology, and anesthesiology journals. We hope to analyze more abstracts for quality in other areas of medicine as well.