deletions | additions       diff --git a/figures/Table 1/caption.tex b/figures/Table 1/caption.tex  index a8ee939..4f1935c 100644  --- a/figures/Table 1/caption.tex  +++ b/figures/Table 1/caption.tex 
...
In 14 of our included reviews, authors evaluated MQ/ROB by either creating an original tool or by combining multiple tools to develop a custom tool. This equates to 7.69\% (14/182) of total reviews in our sample and 16.09\% (14/87) of reviews that conducted a MQ/ROB analysis. A review conducted by Cauchi et al(2008)  used a combination of tools provided by Review Body for Interventional Procedures, Minckler, and Downs and Black in combination with the author’s custom criteria. criteria \cite{cauchi2008systematic}.  Tanna et al(2010)  combined methods described by van der Valk et al and the Delphi list along with custom criteria. criteria \cite{tanna2010meta}.  The remaining 12 reviews used the author’s custom measures exclusively in evaluation of MQ/ROB. The commonly used features of these custom measures are presented in Table 2. Response rate/withdrawal was evaluated most frequently with 64.29\% (9/14) authors including it in their custom measures. Assessor blinding, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and valid and objective outcome measures were the next most commonly used with 57.14\% (8/14) of authors including it in their MQ/ROB assessment. Other less frequently assessed components are summarized in Table 2.