deletions | additions       diff --git a/2.tex b/2.tex  index 1236e05..9a7d5e3 100644  --- a/2.tex  +++ b/2.tex 
...
\textbf{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, The Journal of the American Medical Association- 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 99.09%\. 99.09%.  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.