deletions | additions       diff --git a/2.tex b/2.tex  index 43dbfd7..85613e5 100644  --- a/2.tex  +++ b/2.tex 
...
Methods  We conducted a PubMed search of MEDLINE for systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses published in the American Journal of Ophthalmology, British Journal of Ophthalmology, Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, JAMA Ophthalmology, Ocular Surface, Ophthalmology, and Progress in Retinal and Eye Research from 2005 to 2015. We used the following search string: ((((((((("Progress in retinal and eye research"[Journal])) OR "Archives of ophthalmology"[Journal]) OR "Ophthalmology"[Journal]) OR "The ocular surface"[Journal]) OR "American journal of ophthalmology"[Journal])) OR "Investigative ophthalmology & visual science"[Journal])) OR "The British journal of ophthalmology"[Journal]AND ((((meta-analysis[Title/Abstract]) OR meta-analysis[MeSH Terms]) OR systematic review[Title/Abstract]) OR systematic review[MeSH Terms]) OR meta-analysis[Publication Type]. This search strategy was a modification of Montori et al., (2005) which has shown to be sensitive to identifying systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The search was conducted on January 30, 2015.  Prior to screen and data abstraction, an abstraction manual was developed to standardize coding practices. This manual was pilot tested using a subset of 25 systematic reviews. Revisions were made as necessary. Following the pilot test, we held a training session for coders based on the manual using a subset of 5 systematic reviews. Results were discussed between coders and any discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Rater agreement was also calculated on a randomly selected subset of 10 systematic reviews and found to be 94.3%.  After training, all full-text articles were retrieved and screened during the coding process. The types of excluded articles are detailed in Figure 1. We coded the following elements: (a) name of first author; (b) year of publication; (c) name of journal; (d) whether publication bias was discussed but not necessarily evaluated; (e) whether publication bias was formally evaluated; (f) what method was used to assess publication bias; (g) if a funnel plot was examined, was the figure published in the study (h) whether authors found evidence of publication bias based on their analysis; (i) number of studies included in the meta-analysis; (j) reporting guideline followed, if any; (k) whether authors searched for foreign language articles or did not limit by language; (l) whether authors conducted a hand search of reference lists; and (m) whether authors searched for grey literature.