deletions | additions       diff --git a/figures/Table 1/caption.tex b/figures/Table 1/caption.tex  index c2b968c..60ae687 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. method.  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. One study 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. In one other review, the author combined methods described by van der Valk et al and the Delphi list along with custom criteria. 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 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 measures were allocation concealment, provider and patient blinding, randomization, follow-up, prospective study design, trial size, intention to treat, sampling, similarity at baseline, consecutive selection, stage of disease, statistical analysis, confounding factors, prognostic factors identified, recruitment period stated, interventionist experience, consideration of important outcomes, finding description clear, and sample representative of population (see Table 2). Replace this text with your caption