Split (3)

train · 3.57k rows

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.

id stringlengths 12 15	conversations listlengths 2 2	text stringlengths 1.31k 6.01k
CochranePLS2072	[ { "from": "human", "value": "*TASK\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nINPUT\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nOUTPUT\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nDOCUMENTATION\n\nEXAMPLES*\n\nInput: We were able to include two trials involving 321 people with severe mental illnesses. There was no significant difference in hospital admission (n=160, 1 RCT, RR 0.69 0.5 to 1.0), or number of psychiatric outpatient attendances between participants given advanced treatment directives or usual care. Similarly, no significant differences were found for compliance with treatment, self harm or number of arrests. Participants given advanced treatment directives needed less use of social workers time (n=160, 1 RCT, WMD -106.00 CI -156.2 to -55.8) than the usual care group, and violent acts were also lower in the advanced directives group (n=160, 1 RCT, RR 0.27 CI 0.1 to 0.9, NNT 8 CI 6 to 92). The number of people leaving the study early were not different between groups (n=321, 2 RCTs, RR 0.92 CI 0.6 to 1.6). The addition of 11 studies to awaiting classification section of the review may alter the conclusions of the review once assessed. There are too few data available to make definitive recommendations. More intensive forms of advance directive appear to show promise, but currently practice must be guided by evidence other than that derived from randomised trials. More trials are indicated to determine whether higher intensity interventions, such as joint crisis planning, have an effect on outcomes of clinical relevance.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "This review looks at whether having an advance statement leads to less hospitalisation (either voluntary or involuntary), less contact with mental health services and whether there is an improvement in general functioning. Two studies were found, involving 321 people. Both took place in England. One trial involved the person concerned making a joint crisis plan in collaboration with the psychiatrist, care coordinator and project worker (high intensity), while the other required filling in a booklet called ‘preferences for care’ (low intensity). Both studies were compared to the usual care in the area concerned. Since the interventions were quite different, and not all outcomes were measured by both studies, it is quite difficult to compare the trials. Those who filled in the booklet showed no decrease in admission to hospital (voluntary or involuntary) or contact with out-patient services, when compared to usual care. The high intensity group showed no differences in voluntary admissions compared to those in usual care, but were less likely to be hospitalised involuntarily, or assessed under the Mental Health Act. They were also less likely to be violent. There was no difference in use of psychiatric out-patient services by those in the intervention groups. These are small studies and more research is needed, but it is suggested that using an advance treatment directive could be an alternative to community treatment orders. (Plain language summary prepared for this review by Janey Antoniou of RETHINK, UK www.rethink.org)" } ]	*TASK* the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature *INPUT* the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature *OUTPUT* the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature *DOCUMENTATION* *EXAMPLES* Input: We were able to include two trials involving 321 people with severe mental illnesses. There was no significant difference in hospital admission (n=160, 1 RCT, RR 0.69 0.5 to 1.0), or number of psychiatric outpatient attendances between participants given advanced treatment directives or usual care. Similarly, no significant differences were found for compliance with treatment, self harm or number of arrests. Participants given advanced treatment directives needed less use of social workers time (n=160, 1 RCT, WMD -106.00 CI -156.2 to -55.8) than the usual care group, and violent acts were also lower in the advanced directives group (n=160, 1 RCT, RR 0.27 CI 0.1 to 0.9, NNT 8 CI 6 to 92). The number of people leaving the study early were not different between groups (n=321, 2 RCTs, RR 0.92 CI 0.6 to 1.6). The addition of 11 studies to awaiting classification section of the review may alter the conclusions of the review once assessed. There are too few data available to make definitive recommendations. More intensive forms of advance directive appear to show promise, but currently practice must be guided by evidence other than that derived from randomised trials. More trials are indicated to determine whether higher intensity interventions, such as joint crisis planning, have an effect on outcomes of clinical relevance. Output:
CochranePLS2755	[ { "from": "human", "value": "*TASK\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nINPUT\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nOUTPUT\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nDOCUMENTATION\n\nEXAMPLES*\n\nInput: Twenty-three published and unpublished studies (6061 participants) were included in the review. There was a significant change in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) in favour of salmeterol 50 mcg twice daily (BID) of 51 mls (95% confidence intervals (CI) 32 to 70), end of study morning peak expiratory flow (PEF) 14.89 L/min (95% CI 10.86 to 18.91). Supplemental short-acting bronchodilator usage was reduced by just under one puff per day. There were significant differences in the total, activity and impact domain scores of the St George's respiratory questionnaire in favour of salmeterol 50 mcg BID. Findings from other health status measurements and symptom scores were conflicting. There was no significant difference in exercise tolerance. The number of participants experiencing exacerbations was significantly reduced with salmeterol 50 mcg treatment compared with placebo (numbers needed to treat to benefit 24). This review shows that the treatment of patients with COPD with salmeterol 50 mcg produces modest increases in lung function. There were varying effects for other important outcomes such as health related quality of life or reduction in symptoms. However, there was a consistent reduction in exacerbations which may help people with COPD who suffer frequent deterioration of symptoms prompting healthcare utilisation. The strength of evidence for the use of salmeterol 100 mcg, formoterol 12 mcg, 18 mcg, 24 mcg was insufficient to provide clear indications for practice.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "This review aims to determine the effectiveness of long-acting beta-agonists, salmeterol or formoterol, in the treatment of COPD (emphysema/chronic bronchitis). These drugs improve airflow in the lungs, and enable people with COPD to get on with their daily activities. Twenty-four studies (6061 participants) reported the effects of LABAs in people with COPD. People taking salmeterol 50 mcg daily do have fewer exacerbations than those on placebo, and some improvement in lung function and certain quality of life scores. The findings were not consistent enough to support a general recommendation for the use of these drugs in the group of people with COPD with minimal variation in their lung function, although there is some evidence of improvement in important outcomes and these findings require further exploration in additional trials." } ]	*TASK* the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature *INPUT* the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature *OUTPUT* the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature *DOCUMENTATION* *EXAMPLES* Input: Twenty-three published and unpublished studies (6061 participants) were included in the review. There was a significant change in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) in favour of salmeterol 50 mcg twice daily (BID) of 51 mls (95% confidence intervals (CI) 32 to 70), end of study morning peak expiratory flow (PEF) 14.89 L/min (95% CI 10.86 to 18.91). Supplemental short-acting bronchodilator usage was reduced by just under one puff per day. There were significant differences in the total, activity and impact domain scores of the St George's respiratory questionnaire in favour of salmeterol 50 mcg BID. Findings from other health status measurements and symptom scores were conflicting. There was no significant difference in exercise tolerance. The number of participants experiencing exacerbations was significantly reduced with salmeterol 50 mcg treatment compared with placebo (numbers needed to treat to benefit 24). This review shows that the treatment of patients with COPD with salmeterol 50 mcg produces modest increases in lung function. There were varying effects for other important outcomes such as health related quality of life or reduction in symptoms. However, there was a consistent reduction in exacerbations which may help people with COPD who suffer frequent deterioration of symptoms prompting healthcare utilisation. The strength of evidence for the use of salmeterol 100 mcg, formoterol 12 mcg, 18 mcg, 24 mcg was insufficient to provide clear indications for practice. Output:
CochranePLS2732	[ { "from": "human", "value": "*TASK\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nINPUT\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nOUTPUT\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nDOCUMENTATION\n\nEXAMPLES*\n\nInput: We included six studies involving 119 participants. We combined studies that evaluated MP in addition to another treatment versus the other treatment alone. Mental practice in combination with other treatment appears more effective in improving upper extremity function than the other treatment alone (Z = 3.48, P = 0.0005; standardised mean difference (SMD) 1.37; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 2.15). We attempted subgroup analyses, based on time since stroke and dosage of MP; however, numbers in each group were small. We evaluated the quality of the evidence with the PEDro scale, ranging from 6 to 9 out of 10; we determined the GRADE score to be moderate. There is limited evidence to suggest that MP in combination with other rehabilitation treatment appears to be beneficial in improving upper extremity function after stroke, as compared with other rehabilitation treatment without MP. Evidence regarding improvement in motor recovery and quality of movement is less clear. There is no clear pattern regarding the ideal dosage of MP required to improve outcomes. Further studies are required to evaluate the effect of MP on time post stroke, volume of MP that is required to affect the outcomes and whether improvement is maintained long-term. Numerous large ongoing studies will soon improve the evidence base.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "Our review of six studies involving 119 participants provided limited evidence that mental practice, when added to traditional physical rehabilitation treatment, produced improved outcomes compared with the use of traditional rehabilitation treatment alone. The evidence to date shows the improvements are limited to measures of performance of real-life tasks appropriate to the upper limb (e.g. drinking from a cup, manipulating a door knob). It is not clear if mental practice added to physical practice produces improvements in the motor capacity of the upper limb (i.e. the ability to perform selected movements of the upper limb with strength, speed and/or co-ordination). Finally, there is no evidence available detailing either the components of the mental practice (e.g. How long should the mental practice sessions be? How many mental practice sessions are necessary?, etc) or the qualities of the survivor of a stroke (How long since onset of stroke? How much recovery is required?, etc) that are required to obtain a positive outcome. However, there is reason for optimism that some of the questions will be answered as there are several large trials currently ongoing." } ]	*TASK* the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature *INPUT* the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature *OUTPUT* the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature *DOCUMENTATION* *EXAMPLES* Input: We included six studies involving 119 participants. We combined studies that evaluated MP in addition to another treatment versus the other treatment alone. Mental practice in combination with other treatment appears more effective in improving upper extremity function than the other treatment alone (Z = 3.48, P = 0.0005; standardised mean difference (SMD) 1.37; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 2.15). We attempted subgroup analyses, based on time since stroke and dosage of MP; however, numbers in each group were small. We evaluated the quality of the evidence with the PEDro scale, ranging from 6 to 9 out of 10; we determined the GRADE score to be moderate. There is limited evidence to suggest that MP in combination with other rehabilitation treatment appears to be beneficial in improving upper extremity function after stroke, as compared with other rehabilitation treatment without MP. Evidence regarding improvement in motor recovery and quality of movement is less clear. There is no clear pattern regarding the ideal dosage of MP required to improve outcomes. Further studies are required to evaluate the effect of MP on time post stroke, volume of MP that is required to affect the outcomes and whether improvement is maintained long-term. Numerous large ongoing studies will soon improve the evidence base. Output:
CochranePLS145	[ { "from": "human", "value": "*TASK\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nINPUT\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nOUTPUT\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nDOCUMENTATION\n\nEXAMPLES*\n\nInput: Six heterogeneous trials were identified with 442 participants. Methodological flaws of the included trials included incomplete follow-up and inadequate reporting of outcomes. Three trials compared ACI versus mosaicplasty. One reported statistically significant results in favour of ACI at one year in the numbers of people with 'good' or 'excellent' functional results. Conversely, another trial found significant improvement for the mosaicplasty group when assessed using one functional scoring system at two years, but no statistically significant differences based on two other scoring systems. A third trial found no difference between ACI and mosaicplasty, 10 months on average after the surgery. There was no statistically significant difference in functional outcomes at two years in a single trial comparing ACI with microfracture nor in the functional results at 18 months of a single trial comparing characterised chondrocyte implantation versus microfracture. However, the results at 36 months for this trial seemed to indicate better functional results for characterised chondrocyte implantation compared with those for microfracture. The sixth trial comparing matrix-guided ACI versus microfracture found significantly better results for functional outcomes at two year follow-up in the MACI group. There is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions on the use of ACI for treating full thickness articular cartilage defects in the knee. Further good quality randomised controlled trials with long-term functional outcomes are required.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "This review includes six small randomised controlled trials that compared ACI with either mosaicplasty or microfracture. Although there are some promising results for ACI compared with microfracture from one trial, the evidence from two other trials testing the same comparison did not confirm these. None of the other three trials testing different comparisons provided conclusive evidence in favour of ACI, although the longer-term results suggest that the results for some types of ACI may improve over time. The review identified several ongoing trials that should help to provide evidence to inform on the use of ACI in the future. Meanwhile, there is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions on the use of ACI." } ]	*TASK* the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature *INPUT* the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature *OUTPUT* the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature *DOCUMENTATION* *EXAMPLES* Input: Six heterogeneous trials were identified with 442 participants. Methodological flaws of the included trials included incomplete follow-up and inadequate reporting of outcomes. Three trials compared ACI versus mosaicplasty. One reported statistically significant results in favour of ACI at one year in the numbers of people with 'good' or 'excellent' functional results. Conversely, another trial found significant improvement for the mosaicplasty group when assessed using one functional scoring system at two years, but no statistically significant differences based on two other scoring systems. A third trial found no difference between ACI and mosaicplasty, 10 months on average after the surgery. There was no statistically significant difference in functional outcomes at two years in a single trial comparing ACI with microfracture nor in the functional results at 18 months of a single trial comparing characterised chondrocyte implantation versus microfracture. However, the results at 36 months for this trial seemed to indicate better functional results for characterised chondrocyte implantation compared with those for microfracture. The sixth trial comparing matrix-guided ACI versus microfracture found significantly better results for functional outcomes at two year follow-up in the MACI group. There is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions on the use of ACI for treating full thickness articular cartilage defects in the knee. Further good quality randomised controlled trials with long-term functional outcomes are required. Output:
CochranePLS2293	[ { "from": "human", "value": "*TASK\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nINPUT\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nOUTPUT\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nDOCUMENTATION\n\nEXAMPLES*\n\nInput: We identified five studies involving the laxatives lactulose, senna, co-danthramer, misrakasneham, docusate and magnesium hydroxide with liquid paraffin. Overall, the study findings were at an unclear risk of bias. As all five studies compared different laxatives or combinations of laxatives, it was not possible to perform a meta-analysis. There was no evidence on whether individual laxatives were more effective than others or caused fewer adverse effects. This second update found that laxatives were of similar effectiveness but the evidence remains limited due to insufficient data from a few small RCTs. None of the studies evaluated polyethylene glycol or any intervention given rectally. There is a need for more trials to evaluate the effectiveness of laxatives in palliative care populations. Extrapolating findings on the effectiveness of laxatives evaluated in other populations should proceed with caution. This is because of the differences inherent in people receiving palliative care that may impact, in a likely negative way, on the effect of a laxative.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "We searched medical databases for clinical trials of the use of laxatives for constipation in people receiving palliative care. Two review authors assessed study quality and extracted data. We identified five studies involving 370 people. The laxatives evaluated were lactulose, senna, co-danthramer combined with poloxamer, docusate and magnesium hydroxide combined with liquid paraffin. Misrakasneham was also evaluated; this is a traditional Indian medicine and is used as a laxative, containing castor oil, ghee, milk and 21 types of herbs. There was no evidence on which laxative provided the best treatment. However, the review was limited as the evidence was from only five small trials and patient preference and cost were under evaluated. Further rigorous, independent trials are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of laxatives." } ]	*TASK* the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature *INPUT* the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature *OUTPUT* the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature *DOCUMENTATION* *EXAMPLES* Input: We identified five studies involving the laxatives lactulose, senna, co-danthramer, misrakasneham, docusate and magnesium hydroxide with liquid paraffin. Overall, the study findings were at an unclear risk of bias. As all five studies compared different laxatives or combinations of laxatives, it was not possible to perform a meta-analysis. There was no evidence on whether individual laxatives were more effective than others or caused fewer adverse effects. This second update found that laxatives were of similar effectiveness but the evidence remains limited due to insufficient data from a few small RCTs. None of the studies evaluated polyethylene glycol or any intervention given rectally. There is a need for more trials to evaluate the effectiveness of laxatives in palliative care populations. Extrapolating findings on the effectiveness of laxatives evaluated in other populations should proceed with caution. This is because of the differences inherent in people receiving palliative care that may impact, in a likely negative way, on the effect of a laxative. Output:
CochranePLS2983	[ { "from": "human", "value": "*TASK\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nINPUT\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nOUTPUT\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nDOCUMENTATION\n\nEXAMPLES*\n\nInput: We included 84 RCTs with 8234 participants in this review. Six trials (N = 658) did not report any of the outcomes of interest for this review. The remaining 78 trials excluded 210 participants after randomisation. Thus, a total of 7366 participants in 78 trials contributed to one or more outcomes for this review. The treatments assessed in these 78 trials included antibiotics, antioxidants, aprotinin, atropine, calcitonin, cimetidine, EDTA (ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid), gabexate, glucagon, iniprol, lexipafant, NSAIDs (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs), octreotide, oxyphenonium, probiotics, activated protein C, somatostatin, somatostatin plus omeprazole, somatostatin plus ulinastatin, thymosin, ulinastatin, and inactive control. Apart from the comparison of antibiotics versus control, which included a large proportion of participants with necrotising pancreatitis, the remaining comparisons had only a small proportion of patients with this condition. Most trials included either only participants with severe acute pancreatitis or included a mixture of participants with mild acute pancreatitis and severe acute pancreatitis (75 trials). Overall, the risk of bias in trials was unclear or high for all but one of the trials. Source of funding: seven trials were not funded or funded by agencies without vested interest in results. Pharmaceutical companies partially or fully funded 21 trials. The source of funding was not available from the remaining trials. Since we considered short-term mortality as the most important outcome, we presented only these results in detail in the abstract. Sixty-seven studies including 6638 participants reported short-term mortality. There was no evidence of any differences in short-term mortality in any of the comparisons (very low-quality evidence). With regards to other primary outcomes, serious adverse events (number) were lower than control in participants taking lexipafant (rate ratio 0.67, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.96; N = 290; 1 study; very low-quality evidence), octreotide (rate ratio 0.74, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.89; N = 770; 5 studies; very low-quality evidence), somatostatin plus omeprazole (rate ratio 0.36, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.70; N = 140; 1 study; low-quality evidence), and somatostatin plus ulinastatin (rate ratio 0.30, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.60; N = 122; 1 study; low-quality evidence). The proportion of people with organ failure was lower in octreotide than control (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.97; N = 430; 3 studies; very low-quality evidence). The proportion of people with sepsis was lower in lexipafant than control (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.83; N = 290; 1 study; very low-quality evidence). There was no evidence of differences in any of the remaining comparisons in these outcomes or for any of the remaining primary outcomes (the proportion of participants experiencing at least one serious adverse event and the occurrence of infected pancreatic necrosis). None of the trials reported heath-related quality of life. Very low-quality evidence suggests that none of the pharmacological treatments studied decrease short-term mortality in people with acute pancreatitis. However, the confidence intervals were wide and consistent with an increase or decrease in short-term mortality due to the interventions. We did not find consistent clinical benefits with any intervention. Because of the limitations in the prognostic scoring systems and because damage to organs may occur in acute pancreatitis before they are clinically manifest, future trials should consider including pancreatitis of all severity but power the study to measure the differences in the subgroup of people with severe acute pancreatitis. It may be difficult to power the studies based on mortality. Future trials in participants with acute pancreatitis should consider other outcomes such as complications or health-related quality of life as primary outcomes. Such trials should include health-related quality of life, costs, and return to work as outcomes and should follow patients for at least three months (preferably for at least one year).\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "We included 84 RCTs with 8234 participants in this review. Six trials (658 participants) did not report any of the outcomes of interest for this review. In the remaining 78 trials, 210 participants were excluded after randomisation. Thus, a total of 7366 participants in 78 trials contributed to one or more outcomes for this review. Apart from the comparison of whether antibiotics should be used, the other comparisons included only a small percentage of people with pancreatic necrosis (an extremely severe form of pancreatitis, which results in pancreatic destruction). Most trials included only the severe form of acute pancreatitis or included both mild and severe forms of pancreatitis. Source of funding: seven trials were not funded or were funded by agencies without vested interest in results. Twenty-one trials were partly or fully funded by pharmaceutical companies. The source of funding was not available from the remaining trials. The overall quality of evidence was low for all the measures because the trials were at unclear or high risk of bias (a systematic error or deviation from the truth that affects the results, favouring one treatment over another) and were small trials. As a result, further studies are required on this topic. Sixty-seven studies including 6638 participants reported short-term deaths. Overall, an average 12% of people who received only supportive care died. There was no evidence that any of the treatments decreased short-term deaths. There was evidence that various treatments might be beneficial in a number of outcomes; however, these results were not consistent, and we cannot make any conclusions as to whether any of the treatments may be beneficial. None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. In conclusion, based on low quality evidence, there is no evidence that any drug treatment added on to supportive care decreases short-term deaths. Future trials in participants with acute pancreatitis should include health-related quality of life, costs, and return to work as outcomes and should follow patients for at least three months (preferably for at least one year)." } ]	*TASK* the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature *INPUT* the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature *OUTPUT* the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature *DOCUMENTATION* *EXAMPLES* Input: We included 84 RCTs with 8234 participants in this review. Six trials (N = 658) did not report any of the outcomes of interest for this review. The remaining 78 trials excluded 210 participants after randomisation. Thus, a total of 7366 participants in 78 trials contributed to one or more outcomes for this review. The treatments assessed in these 78 trials included antibiotics, antioxidants, aprotinin, atropine, calcitonin, cimetidine, EDTA (ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid), gabexate, glucagon, iniprol, lexipafant, NSAIDs (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs), octreotide, oxyphenonium, probiotics, activated protein C, somatostatin, somatostatin plus omeprazole, somatostatin plus ulinastatin, thymosin, ulinastatin, and inactive control. Apart from the comparison of antibiotics versus control, which included a large proportion of participants with necrotising pancreatitis, the remaining comparisons had only a small proportion of patients with this condition. Most trials included either only participants with severe acute pancreatitis or included a mixture of participants with mild acute pancreatitis and severe acute pancreatitis (75 trials). Overall, the risk of bias in trials was unclear or high for all but one of the trials. Source of funding: seven trials were not funded or funded by agencies without vested interest in results. Pharmaceutical companies partially or fully funded 21 trials. The source of funding was not available from the remaining trials. Since we considered short-term mortality as the most important outcome, we presented only these results in detail in the abstract. Sixty-seven studies including 6638 participants reported short-term mortality. There was no evidence of any differences in short-term mortality in any of the comparisons (very low-quality evidence). With regards to other primary outcomes, serious adverse events (number) were lower than control in participants taking lexipafant (rate ratio 0.67, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.96; N = 290; 1 study; very low-quality evidence), octreotide (rate ratio 0.74, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.89; N = 770; 5 studies; very low-quality evidence), somatostatin plus omeprazole (rate ratio 0.36, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.70; N = 140; 1 study; low-quality evidence), and somatostatin plus ulinastatin (rate ratio 0.30, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.60; N = 122; 1 study; low-quality evidence). The proportion of people with organ failure was lower in octreotide than control (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.97; N = 430; 3 studies; very low-quality evidence). The proportion of people with sepsis was lower in lexipafant than control (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.83; N = 290; 1 study; very low-quality evidence). There was no evidence of differences in any of the remaining comparisons in these outcomes or for any of the remaining primary outcomes (the proportion of participants experiencing at least one serious adverse event and the occurrence of infected pancreatic necrosis). None of the trials reported heath-related quality of life. Very low-quality evidence suggests that none of the pharmacological treatments studied decrease short-term mortality in people with acute pancreatitis. However, the confidence intervals were wide and consistent with an increase or decrease in short-term mortality due to the interventions. We did not find consistent clinical benefits with any intervention. Because of the limitations in the prognostic scoring systems and because damage to organs may occur in acute pancreatitis before they are clinically manifest, future trials should consider including pancreatitis of all severity but power the study to measure the differences in the subgroup of people with severe acute pancreatitis. It may be difficult to power the studies based on mortality. Future trials in participants with acute pancreatitis should consider other outcomes such as complications or health-related quality of life as primary outcomes. Such trials should include health-related quality of life, costs, and return to work as outcomes and should follow patients for at least three months (preferably for at least one year). Output:
CochranePLS1763	[ { "from": "human", "value": "*TASK\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nINPUT\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nOUTPUT\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nDOCUMENTATION\n\nEXAMPLES*\n\nInput: We included 89 studies (of which 40 were new to this update) in 10,583 people with OWCL. The studies included were conducted mainly in the Far or Middle East at regional hospitals, local healthcare clinics, and skin disease research centres. Women accounted for 41.5% of the participants (range: 23% to 80%). The overall mean age of participants was 25 years (range 12 to 56). Most studies lasted between two to six months, with the longest lasting two years; average duration was four months. Most studies were at unclear or high risk for most bias domains. A lack of blinding and reporting bias were present in almost 40% of studies. Two trials were at low risk of bias for all domains. Trials reported the causative species poorly. Here we provide results for the two main comparisons identified: itraconazole (200 mg for six to eight weeks) versus placebo; and paromomycin ointment (15% plus 10% urea, twice daily for 14 days) versus vehicle. In the comparison of oral itraconazole versus placebo, at 2.5 months' follow up, 85/125 participants in the itraconazole group achieved complete cure compared to 54/119 in the placebo group (RR 3.70, 95% CI 0.35 to 38.99; 3 studies; 244 participants). In one study, microbiological or histopathological cure of skin lesions only occurred in the itraconazole group after a mean follow-up of 2.5 months (RR 17.00, 95% CI 0.47 to 612.21; 20 participants). However, although the analyses favour oral itraconazole for these outcomes, we cannot be confident in the results due to the very low certainty evidence. More side effects of mild abdominal pain and nausea (RR 2.36, 95% CI 0.74 to 7.47; 3 studies; 204 participants) and mild abnormal liver function (RR 3.08, 95% CI 0.53 to 17.98; 3 studies; 84 participants) occurred in the itraconazole group (as well as reports of headaches and dizziness), compared with the placebo group, but again we rated the certainty of evidence as very low so are unsure of the results. When comparing paromomycin with vehicle, there was no difference in the number of participants who achieved complete cure (RR of 1.00, 95% CI 0.86, 1.17; 383 participants, 2 studies) and microbiological or histopathological cure of skin lesions after a mean follow-up of 2.5 months (RR 1.03, CI 0.88 to 1.20; 383 participants, 2 studies), but the paromomycin group had more skin/local reactions (such as inflammation, vesiculation, pain, redness, or itch) (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.67 to 3.01; 4 studies; 713 participants). For all of these outcomes, the certainty of evidence was very low, meaning we are unsure about these results. Trial authors did not report the percentage of lesions cured after the end of treatment or speed of healing for either of these key comparisons. There was very low-certainty evidence to support the effectiveness of itraconazole and paromomycin ointment for OWCL in terms of cure (i.e. microbiological or histopathological cure and percentage of participants completely cured). Both of these interventions incited more adverse effects, which were mild in nature, than their comparisons, but we could draw no conclusions regarding safety due to the very low certainty of the evidence for this outcome. We downgraded the key outcomes in these two comparisons due to high risk of bias, inconsistency between the results, and imprecision. There is a need for large, well-designed international studies that evaluate long-term effects of current therapies and enable a reliable conclusion about treatments. Future trials should specify the species of leishmaniasis; trials on types caused by Leishmania infantum, L aethiopica, andL donovani are lacking. Research into the effects of treating women of childbearing age, children, people with comorbid conditions, and those who are immunocompromised would also be helpful. It was difficult to evaluate the overall efficacy of any of the numerous treatments due to the variable treatment regimens examined and because RCTs evaluated different Leishmania species and took place in different geographical areas. Some outcomes we looked for but did not find were degree of functional and aesthetic impairment, change in ability to detect Leishmania, quality of life, and emergence of resistance. There were only limited data on prevention of scarring.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "We reviewed 89 clinical trials, which included 10,583 people, in total, with OWCL. We included participants of both sexes and all ages (mean 24.5 years); most participants were over 18 years of age. Most studies were carried out in single centres in different countries, mainly in the Far or Middle East, and lasted between two to six months. We included a variety of treatments, such as antimonials, antifungals, and antibiotics, which were administered either directly onto the skin or into a wound, taken by mouth, or physically applied (e.g. laser treatment, heat therapy, etc.). Most of the included studies assessed OWCL caused by two species of parasites known as Leishmania major (L. major) andLeishmania tropica (L. tropica). The evidence is current to November 2016. Two of the most important treatments that we assessed in this review were itraconazole, an antifungal drug taken by mouth, and paromomycin, an antibiotic applied as an ointment. Trials compared both to a placebo tablet or inactive cream (vehicle). Participants received 200 mg itraconazole for six to eight weeks or paromomycin ointment at a concentration of 15% plus 10% urea, twice daily for 14 days. When assessed on average 2.5 months after treatment, more participants were completely cured and cleared of the infection-causing parasites with itraconazole than placebo, but they also had more side effects (mild stomach pain, sickness, and abnormal liver function, as well as headaches and dizziness). When paromomycin ointment was compared with placebo, there was no difference in the number of completely cured participants or the number who were found to be cleared of parasites when assessed on average 2.5 months after treatment, but those in the paromomycin treatment group had more contained skin reactions (such as swelling, blistering, pain, redness, or itch). However, as the certainty of the evidence for these outcomes for these particular comparisons was very low, we are not sure of the accuracy of these results. Neither of our key treatment comparisons assessed the percentage of wounds cured after the end of treatment and speed of healing (i.e. time taken to be cured). The overall certainty of the evidence for the different outcomes in the two main comparisons was very low. Important reasons for this were that studies were not blinded, or had a small sample size, making the results less precise. Some of the evidence only focused on young people, and the results greatly varied between each study. We need more research to fill in the following research gaps: 1) trials of OWCL caused by other types of infection such as L. infantum, L. aethiopica,or L. donovani; 2) involving specific subgroups of people such as children; 3) assessing effectiveness and safety of different anti-Leishmania drugs compared with placebo in self-healing forms of leishmaniasis or with traditional first-choice antimonial treatment in complicated form (defined as more than four lesions over 4 cm in size, located close to an opening or small joints, for which previous treatment has failed); and 4) assessing areas such as wound healing and patient-reported outcomes, such as quality of life. In addition, few studies assessed relevant issues such as drug resistance. International collaboration is required to improve the quality and standardisation of future trials in order to develop a better evidence-based approach." } ]	*TASK* the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature *INPUT* the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature *OUTPUT* the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature *DOCUMENTATION* *EXAMPLES* Input: We included 89 studies (of which 40 were new to this update) in 10,583 people with OWCL. The studies included were conducted mainly in the Far or Middle East at regional hospitals, local healthcare clinics, and skin disease research centres. Women accounted for 41.5% of the participants (range: 23% to 80%). The overall mean age of participants was 25 years (range 12 to 56). Most studies lasted between two to six months, with the longest lasting two years; average duration was four months. Most studies were at unclear or high risk for most bias domains. A lack of blinding and reporting bias were present in almost 40% of studies. Two trials were at low risk of bias for all domains. Trials reported the causative species poorly. Here we provide results for the two main comparisons identified: itraconazole (200 mg for six to eight weeks) versus placebo; and paromomycin ointment (15% plus 10% urea, twice daily for 14 days) versus vehicle. In the comparison of oral itraconazole versus placebo, at 2.5 months' follow up, 85/125 participants in the itraconazole group achieved complete cure compared to 54/119 in the placebo group (RR 3.70, 95% CI 0.35 to 38.99; 3 studies; 244 participants). In one study, microbiological or histopathological cure of skin lesions only occurred in the itraconazole group after a mean follow-up of 2.5 months (RR 17.00, 95% CI 0.47 to 612.21; 20 participants). However, although the analyses favour oral itraconazole for these outcomes, we cannot be confident in the results due to the very low certainty evidence. More side effects of mild abdominal pain and nausea (RR 2.36, 95% CI 0.74 to 7.47; 3 studies; 204 participants) and mild abnormal liver function (RR 3.08, 95% CI 0.53 to 17.98; 3 studies; 84 participants) occurred in the itraconazole group (as well as reports of headaches and dizziness), compared with the placebo group, but again we rated the certainty of evidence as very low so are unsure of the results. When comparing paromomycin with vehicle, there was no difference in the number of participants who achieved complete cure (RR of 1.00, 95% CI 0.86, 1.17; 383 participants, 2 studies) and microbiological or histopathological cure of skin lesions after a mean follow-up of 2.5 months (RR 1.03, CI 0.88 to 1.20; 383 participants, 2 studies), but the paromomycin group had more skin/local reactions (such as inflammation, vesiculation, pain, redness, or itch) (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.67 to 3.01; 4 studies; 713 participants). For all of these outcomes, the certainty of evidence was very low, meaning we are unsure about these results. Trial authors did not report the percentage of lesions cured after the end of treatment or speed of healing for either of these key comparisons. There was very low-certainty evidence to support the effectiveness of itraconazole and paromomycin ointment for OWCL in terms of cure (i.e. microbiological or histopathological cure and percentage of participants completely cured). Both of these interventions incited more adverse effects, which were mild in nature, than their comparisons, but we could draw no conclusions regarding safety due to the very low certainty of the evidence for this outcome. We downgraded the key outcomes in these two comparisons due to high risk of bias, inconsistency between the results, and imprecision. There is a need for large, well-designed international studies that evaluate long-term effects of current therapies and enable a reliable conclusion about treatments. Future trials should specify the species of leishmaniasis; trials on types caused by Leishmania infantum, L aethiopica, andL donovani are lacking. Research into the effects of treating women of childbearing age, children, people with comorbid conditions, and those who are immunocompromised would also be helpful. It was difficult to evaluate the overall efficacy of any of the numerous treatments due to the variable treatment regimens examined and because RCTs evaluated different Leishmania species and took place in different geographical areas. Some outcomes we looked for but did not find were degree of functional and aesthetic impairment, change in ability to detect Leishmania, quality of life, and emergence of resistance. There were only limited data on prevention of scarring. Output:
CochranePLS29	[ { "from": "human", "value": "*TASK\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nINPUT\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nOUTPUT\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nDOCUMENTATION\n\nEXAMPLES*\n\nInput: Seven RCTs (1154 patients) of low or moderate quality were identified. The incidence of MUCs was significantly reduced (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.77, P = 0.02, NNT 13) by universal prophylactic stenting. This was dependent on whether the same surgeon performed, or was in attendance, during the operations. Two patients lost their grafts to infective urinary tract complications in the stented group. UTIs, in general, were more common in stented patients (RR 1.49, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.15) unless the patients were prescribed cotrimoxazole 480 mg/d: in which case the incidence was equivalent (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.33). Stents appeared generally well tolerated, although studies using longer stents (≥ 20 cm) for longer periods (> 6 weeks) had more problems with encrustation and migration. Routine prophylactic stenting reduces the incidence of MUCs. Studies comparing selective stenting and universal prophylactic stenting, whilst difficult to design and analyse, would address the unresolved quality of life and economic issues.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "This review aimed to determine the benefit and harms of the use of routine stenting in kidney transplant recipients in the prevention of urological complications. Seven studies (1154 patients) were identified. The incidence of MUCs were significantly reduced by the use of prophylactic stenting. Urinary tract infections (UTIs) were more common in stented patients however the addition of antibiotic prophylaxis resulted in no difference in the incidence of UTIs between the two groups. More studies are needed to investigate the use of selective versus universal prophylactic stenting for the unresolved issues of quality of life and cost." } ]	*TASK* the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature *INPUT* the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature *OUTPUT* the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature *DOCUMENTATION* *EXAMPLES* Input: Seven RCTs (1154 patients) of low or moderate quality were identified. The incidence of MUCs was significantly reduced (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.77, P = 0.02, NNT 13) by universal prophylactic stenting. This was dependent on whether the same surgeon performed, or was in attendance, during the operations. Two patients lost their grafts to infective urinary tract complications in the stented group. UTIs, in general, were more common in stented patients (RR 1.49, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.15) unless the patients were prescribed cotrimoxazole 480 mg/d: in which case the incidence was equivalent (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.33). Stents appeared generally well tolerated, although studies using longer stents (≥ 20 cm) for longer periods (> 6 weeks) had more problems with encrustation and migration. Routine prophylactic stenting reduces the incidence of MUCs. Studies comparing selective stenting and universal prophylactic stenting, whilst difficult to design and analyse, would address the unresolved quality of life and economic issues. Output:
CochranePLS40	[ { "from": "human", "value": "*TASK\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nINPUT\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nOUTPUT\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nDOCUMENTATION\n\nEXAMPLES*\n\nInput: We included only one trial in the review. Keszler 1991 randomly assigned 166 preterm infants; reported data on 144 infants; and permitted cross-over to the alternate treatment if initial treatment failed. Investigators found no statistically significant differences in overall mortality (including survival after cross-over) between the two groups (RR 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 1.72). In a secondary analysis of infants up to the time of cross-over, rescue treatment with HFJV was associated with lower mortality (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.97). Researchers reported no significant differences in the incidence of CLD among survivors at 28 days of age, nor in the incidence of intraventricular haemorrhage, new air leaks, airway obstruction and necrotising tracheobronchitis. Study authors reported no significant differences in overall mortality between rescue high-frequency jet ventilation and conventional ventilation and presented highly imprecise results for important adverse effects such as intraventricular haemorrhage, new air leaks, airway obstruction and necrotising tracheobronchitis. The overall quality of evidence is affected by limitations in trial design and by imprecision due to the small number of infants in the included study. Existing evidence does not support the use of high-frequency jet ventilation as rescue therapy in preterm infants. Studies that target populations at greatest risk and that have sufficient power to assess important outcomes are needed. These trials should incorporate long-term pulmonary and neurodevelopmental outcomes.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "One study randomly assigned 166 preterm infants and reported data on 144 infants. The included study was completed before the introduction of surfactant and widespread use of antenatal steroids. This trial demonstrated no differences in outcomes among infants who received high-frequency jet ventilation. In this trial, cross-over to the alternate treatment was permitted if initial treatment failed. Investigators found no statistically significant differences in overall mortality (including survival after cross-over) between the two groups. In a secondary analysis, researchers showed that rescue treatment with HFJV, up to the time of cross-over, was associated with lower mortality. Researchers reported no differences in the incidence of chronic lung disease among survivors at 28 days of age, and they found no differences in intraventricular haemorrhage, new air leaks, airway obstruction and necrotising tracheobronchitis. Existing evidence does not support the use of rescue high-frequency jet ventilation compared with conventional mechanical ventilation for treatment of preterm infants with severe pulmonary problems. Additional research is needed." } ]	*TASK* the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature *INPUT* the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature *OUTPUT* the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature *DOCUMENTATION* *EXAMPLES* Input: We included only one trial in the review. Keszler 1991 randomly assigned 166 preterm infants; reported data on 144 infants; and permitted cross-over to the alternate treatment if initial treatment failed. Investigators found no statistically significant differences in overall mortality (including survival after cross-over) between the two groups (RR 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 1.72). In a secondary analysis of infants up to the time of cross-over, rescue treatment with HFJV was associated with lower mortality (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.97). Researchers reported no significant differences in the incidence of CLD among survivors at 28 days of age, nor in the incidence of intraventricular haemorrhage, new air leaks, airway obstruction and necrotising tracheobronchitis. Study authors reported no significant differences in overall mortality between rescue high-frequency jet ventilation and conventional ventilation and presented highly imprecise results for important adverse effects such as intraventricular haemorrhage, new air leaks, airway obstruction and necrotising tracheobronchitis. The overall quality of evidence is affected by limitations in trial design and by imprecision due to the small number of infants in the included study. Existing evidence does not support the use of high-frequency jet ventilation as rescue therapy in preterm infants. Studies that target populations at greatest risk and that have sufficient power to assess important outcomes are needed. These trials should incorporate long-term pulmonary and neurodevelopmental outcomes. Output:
CochranePLS2560	[ { "from": "human", "value": "*TASK\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nINPUT\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nOUTPUT\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nDOCUMENTATION\n\nEXAMPLES*\n\nInput: Twenty-seven studies involving 11,398 participants met the eligibility and study quality criteria for inclusion. Twenty studies compared stand alone clinical pathways with usual care. These studies indicated a reduction in in-hospital complications (odds ratio (OR) 0.58; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 0.94) and improved documentation (OR 11.95: 95%CI 4.72 to 30.30). There was no evidence of differences in readmission to hospital or in-hospital mortality. Length of stay was the most commonly employed outcome measure with most studies reporting significant reductions. A decrease in hospital costs/ charges was also observed, ranging from WMD +261 US$ favouring usual care to WMD -4919 US$ favouring clinical pathways (in US$ dollar standardized to the year 2000). Considerable heterogeneity prevented meta-analysis of length of stay and hospital cost results. An assessment of whether lower hospital costs contributed to cost shifting to another health sector was not undertaken. Seven studies compared clinical pathways as part of a multifaceted intervention with usual care. No evidence of differences were found between intervention and control groups. Clinical pathways are associated with reduced in-hospital complications and improved documentation without negatively impacting on length of stay and hospital costs.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "Twenty-seven studies involving 11,398 participants were included for analysis. The main results were a reduction in in-hospital complications and improved documentation associated with clinical pathways. Complications assessed included wound infections, bleeding and pneumonia. Most studies reported a decreased length of stay and reduction in hospital costs when clinical pathways were implemented. Considerable variation in study design and settings prevented statistical pooling of results for length of stay and hospital costs. Generally poor reporting prevented the identification of characteristics common to successful clinical pathways. The authors concluded that clinical pathways are associated with reduced in-hospital complications" } ]	*TASK* the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature *INPUT* the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature *OUTPUT* the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature *DOCUMENTATION* *EXAMPLES* Input: Twenty-seven studies involving 11,398 participants met the eligibility and study quality criteria for inclusion. Twenty studies compared stand alone clinical pathways with usual care. These studies indicated a reduction in in-hospital complications (odds ratio (OR) 0.58; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 0.94) and improved documentation (OR 11.95: 95%CI 4.72 to 30.30). There was no evidence of differences in readmission to hospital or in-hospital mortality. Length of stay was the most commonly employed outcome measure with most studies reporting significant reductions. A decrease in hospital costs/ charges was also observed, ranging from WMD +261 US$ favouring usual care to WMD -4919 US$ favouring clinical pathways (in US$ dollar standardized to the year 2000). Considerable heterogeneity prevented meta-analysis of length of stay and hospital cost results. An assessment of whether lower hospital costs contributed to cost shifting to another health sector was not undertaken. Seven studies compared clinical pathways as part of a multifaceted intervention with usual care. No evidence of differences were found between intervention and control groups. Clinical pathways are associated with reduced in-hospital complications and improved documentation without negatively impacting on length of stay and hospital costs. Output:
CochranePLS1474	[ { "from": "human", "value": "*TASK\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nINPUT\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nOUTPUT\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nDOCUMENTATION\n\nEXAMPLES*\n\nInput: Fifteen studies (N= 2012) were included in analyses. We assessed the risk of bias for included studies as low overall. We identified nine high 'risk of bias' assessments, 22 unclear, and 59 low 'risk of bias' assessments. Most judgements of a high risk of bias were due to inadequate reporting. Analyses revealed seven effects. Participants with headache conditions receiving psychological therapies delivered via the Internet had reduced pain (number needed to treat to benefit = 2.72, risk ratio 7.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.67 to 19.84, p < 0.01) and a moderate effect was found for disability post-treatment (standardised mean difference (SMD) ‒0.65, 95% CI ‒0.91 to ‒0.39, p < 0.01). However, only two studies could be entered into each analysis; hence, findings should be interpreted with caution. There was no clear evidence that psychological therapies improved depression or anxiety post-treatment (SMD −0.26, 95% CI −0.87 to 0.36, p > 0.05; SMD −0.48, 95% CI −1.22 to 0.27, p > 0.05), respectively. In participants with non-headache conditions, psychological therapies improved pain post-treatment (p < 0.01) with a small effect size (SMD −0.37, 95% CI −0.59 to −0.15), disability post-treatment (p < 0.01) with a moderate effect size (SMD −0.50, 95% CI −0.79 to −0.20), and disability at follow-up (p < 0.05) with a small effect size (SMD −0.15, 95% CI −0.28 to −0.01). However, the follow-up analysis included only two studies and should be interpreted with caution. A small effect was found for depression and anxiety post-treatment (SMD −0.19, 95% CI −0.35 to −0.04, p < 0.05; SMD −0.28, 95% CI −0.49 to −0.06, p < 0.01), respectively. No clear evidence of benefit was found for other follow-up analyses. Analyses of adverse effects were not possible. No data were presented on satisfaction/acceptability. Only one study could be included in an analysis of the effect of psychological therapies on quality of life in participants with headache conditions; hence, no analysis could be undertaken. Three studies presented quality of life data for participants with non-headache conditions; however, no clear evidence of benefit was found (SMD −0.27, 95% CI −0.54 to 0.01, p > 0.05). There is insufficient evidence to make conclusions regarding the efficacy of psychological therapies delivered via the Internet in participants with headache conditions. Psychological therapies reduced pain and disability post-treatment; however, no clear evidence of benefit was found for depression and anxiety. For participants with non-headache conditions, psychological therapies delivered via the Internet reduced pain, disability, depression, and anxiety post-treatment. The positive effects on disability were maintained at follow-up. These effects are promising, but considerable uncertainty remains around the estimates of effect. These results come from a small number of trials, with mostly wait-list controls, no reports of adverse events, and non-clinical recruitment methods. Due to the novel method of delivery, the satisfaction and acceptability of these therapies should be explored in this population. These results are similar to those of reviews of traditional face-to-face therapies for chronic pain.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "Four databases were searched up to November 2013. We found 15 trials that met our inclusion criteria. Four trials included individuals with headache pain, 10 trials included individuals with non-headache pain, and one trial included individuals with both headache and non-headache pain. We looked at data about pain, disability, depression, and anxiety immediately after the end of treatment and between 3 to 12 months follow-up. We also looked at how satisfied people were with the treatments, and its effects on their quality of life. We found that for people with headache pain, pain symptoms and disability scores improved immediately following the end of treatment. However, only two trials could be entered into each of these analyses and so findings should be treated with caution. For people with non-headache pain, pain, disability, depression, and anxiety improved immediately after the end of treatment. Disability was also improved at follow-up. Only one study recorded quality of life scores in individuals with headache pain, so we were unable to analyse the results. Three studies presented quality of life scores for individuals with non-headache pain immediately following treatment. We did not find that quality of life improved after receiving the therapy. No data could be analysed on treatment satisfaction/acceptability. We conclude that these findings are promising for psychological treatments delivered via the Internet for the management of chronic pain in adults, but more trials are needed to determine the efficacy of such therapies." } ]	*TASK* the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature *INPUT* the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature *OUTPUT* the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature *DOCUMENTATION* *EXAMPLES* Input: Fifteen studies (N= 2012) were included in analyses. We assessed the risk of bias for included studies as low overall. We identified nine high 'risk of bias' assessments, 22 unclear, and 59 low 'risk of bias' assessments. Most judgements of a high risk of bias were due to inadequate reporting. Analyses revealed seven effects. Participants with headache conditions receiving psychological therapies delivered via the Internet had reduced pain (number needed to treat to benefit = 2.72, risk ratio 7.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.67 to 19.84, p < 0.01) and a moderate effect was found for disability post-treatment (standardised mean difference (SMD) ‒0.65, 95% CI ‒0.91 to ‒0.39, p < 0.01). However, only two studies could be entered into each analysis; hence, findings should be interpreted with caution. There was no clear evidence that psychological therapies improved depression or anxiety post-treatment (SMD −0.26, 95% CI −0.87 to 0.36, p > 0.05; SMD −0.48, 95% CI −1.22 to 0.27, p > 0.05), respectively. In participants with non-headache conditions, psychological therapies improved pain post-treatment (p < 0.01) with a small effect size (SMD −0.37, 95% CI −0.59 to −0.15), disability post-treatment (p < 0.01) with a moderate effect size (SMD −0.50, 95% CI −0.79 to −0.20), and disability at follow-up (p < 0.05) with a small effect size (SMD −0.15, 95% CI −0.28 to −0.01). However, the follow-up analysis included only two studies and should be interpreted with caution. A small effect was found for depression and anxiety post-treatment (SMD −0.19, 95% CI −0.35 to −0.04, p < 0.05; SMD −0.28, 95% CI −0.49 to −0.06, p < 0.01), respectively. No clear evidence of benefit was found for other follow-up analyses. Analyses of adverse effects were not possible. No data were presented on satisfaction/acceptability. Only one study could be included in an analysis of the effect of psychological therapies on quality of life in participants with headache conditions; hence, no analysis could be undertaken. Three studies presented quality of life data for participants with non-headache conditions; however, no clear evidence of benefit was found (SMD −0.27, 95% CI −0.54 to 0.01, p > 0.05). There is insufficient evidence to make conclusions regarding the efficacy of psychological therapies delivered via the Internet in participants with headache conditions. Psychological therapies reduced pain and disability post-treatment; however, no clear evidence of benefit was found for depression and anxiety. For participants with non-headache conditions, psychological therapies delivered via the Internet reduced pain, disability, depression, and anxiety post-treatment. The positive effects on disability were maintained at follow-up. These effects are promising, but considerable uncertainty remains around the estimates of effect. These results come from a small number of trials, with mostly wait-list controls, no reports of adverse events, and non-clinical recruitment methods. Due to the novel method of delivery, the satisfaction and acceptability of these therapies should be explored in this population. These results are similar to those of reviews of traditional face-to-face therapies for chronic pain. Output:
CochranePLS1205	[ { "from": "human", "value": "*TASK\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nINPUT\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nOUTPUT\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nDOCUMENTATION\n\nEXAMPLES*\n\nInput: One randomised trial was identified and included in the review. It was of low methodological quality. The trial compared D-penicillamine versus placebo in 70 patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis. Compared with placebo, D-penicillamine therapy had no significant effect on mortality (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.64), liver transplantation (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.39 to 3.17), hepatic histologic progression (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.74), or cholangiographic deterioration (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.79). D-penicillamine led to a significant improvement in the serum aspartate aminotransferase (WMD -23.00 U/L; 95% CI -30.66 to -15.34), but not in serum bilirubin level (WMD 0.40 mg/L; 95% CI -0.19 to 0.99) and serum alkaline phosphatases activity (WMD 44.00 U/L; 95% CI -37.89 to 125.89). There were significantly more adverse events in patients receiving D-penicillamine (P = 0.013). There is not sufficient evidence to support or refute the use of D-penicillamine for patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis. We do not recommend the use of D-penicillamine for patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis outside randomised trials.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "The only identified randomised clinical trial did not demonstrate any beneficial effect of D-penicillamine on the course, complications, and survival of patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis. In addition, its use was associated with a number of adverse events. Therefore, we cannot recommend the use of D-penicillamine outside randomised trials." } ]	*TASK* the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature *INPUT* the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature *OUTPUT* the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature *DOCUMENTATION* *EXAMPLES* Input: One randomised trial was identified and included in the review. It was of low methodological quality. The trial compared D-penicillamine versus placebo in 70 patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis. Compared with placebo, D-penicillamine therapy had no significant effect on mortality (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.64), liver transplantation (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.39 to 3.17), hepatic histologic progression (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.74), or cholangiographic deterioration (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.79). D-penicillamine led to a significant improvement in the serum aspartate aminotransferase (WMD -23.00 U/L; 95% CI -30.66 to -15.34), but not in serum bilirubin level (WMD 0.40 mg/L; 95% CI -0.19 to 0.99) and serum alkaline phosphatases activity (WMD 44.00 U/L; 95% CI -37.89 to 125.89). There were significantly more adverse events in patients receiving D-penicillamine (P = 0.013). There is not sufficient evidence to support or refute the use of D-penicillamine for patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis. We do not recommend the use of D-penicillamine for patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis outside randomised trials. Output:
CochranePLS2035	[ { "from": "human", "value": "*TASK\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nINPUT\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nOUTPUT\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nDOCUMENTATION\n\nEXAMPLES*\n\nInput: We included 14 studies (747 participants). The studies included children (seven studies, 499 participants) and adults (seven studies, 248 participants). No studies reported outcomes beyond three months follow-up. Saline volumes ranged from 'very low' to 'high' volume. Where stated, studies used either hypertonic or isotonic saline solution. Nasal saline versus no saline treatment All seven studies (112 adults; 332 children) evaluating this comparison used different scoring systems for patient-reported disease severity, so we pooled the data using the standardised mean difference (SMD). Saline irrigation may improve patient-reported disease severity compared with no saline at up to four weeks (SMD -1.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.84 to -0.81; 407 participants; 6 studies; low quality) and between four weeks and three months (SMD -1.44, 95% CI -2.39 to -0.48; 167 participants; 5 studies; low quality). Although the evidence was low quality the SMD values at both time points are considered large effect sizes. Subgroup analysis showed the improvement in both adults and children. Subgroup analyses for volume and tonicity were inconclusive due to heterogeneity. Two studies reported methods for recording adverse effects and five studies mentioned them. Two studies (240 children) reported no adverse effects (epistaxis or local discomfort) in either group and three only reported no adverse effects in the saline group. One study (48 children) reported disease-specific HRQL using a modified RCQ-36 scale. It was uncertain whether there was a difference between the groups at any of the specified time points (very low quality). No other secondary outcomes were reported. Nasal saline versus no saline with adjuvant use of intranasal steroids or oral antihistamines Three studies (40 adults; 79 children) compared saline with intranasal steroids versus intranasal steroids alone; one study (14 adults) compared saline with oral antihistamines versus oral antihistamines alone. It is uncertain if there is a difference in patient-reported disease severity at up to four weeks (SMD -0.60, 95% CI -1.34 to 0.15; 32 participants; 2 studies; very low quality) or from four weeks to three months (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.85 to 0.21; 58 participants; 2 studies; very low quality). Although none of the studies reported methods for recording adverse effects, three mentioned them: one study (40 adults; adjuvant intranasal steroids) reported no adverse effects (epistaxis or local discomfort) in either group; the other two only reported no adverse effects in the saline group. It is uncertain if saline irrigation in addition to pharmacological treatment improved disease-specific HRQL at four weeks to three months, compared with pharmacological treatment alone (SMD -1.26, 95% CI -2.47 to -0.05; 54 participants; 2 studies; very low quality). No other secondary outcomes were reported. Nasal saline versus intranasal steroids It is uncertain if there was a difference in patient-reported disease severity between nasal saline and intranasal steroids at up to four weeks (MD 1.06, 95% CI -1.65 to 3.77; 14 participants; 1 study), or between four weeks and three months (SMD 1.26, 95% CI -0.92 to 3.43; 97 participants; 3 studies), or indisease-specific HRQL between four weeks and three months (SMD 0.01, 95% CI -0.73 to 0.75; 83 participants; 2 studies). Only one study reported methods for recording adverse effects although three studies mentioned them. One (21 participants) reported two withdrawals due to adverse effects but did not describe these or state which group. Three studies reported no adverse effects (epistaxis or local discomfort) with saline, although one study reported that 27% of participants experienced local discomfort with steroid use. No other secondary outcomes were reported. Saline irrigation may reduce patient-reported disease severity compared with no saline irrigation at up to three months in both adults and children with allergic rhinitis, with no reported adverse effects. No data were available for any outcomes beyond three months. The overall quality of evidence was low or very low. The included studies were generally small and used a range of different outcome measures to report disease severity scores, with unclear validation. This review did not include direct comparisons of saline types (e.g. different volume, tonicity). Since saline irrigation could provide a cheap, safe and acceptable alternative to intranasal steroids and antihistamines further high-quality, adequately powered research in this area is warranted.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "We found 14 studies with a total of 747 participants (260 adults; 487 children). The volume of saline used in the studies varied: five studies used 'very low' volumes (nasal sprays providing less than 5 mL saline per nostril per application), two studies used low-volume (between 5 and 59 mL saline per nostril per application introduced with a syringe) and four studies used high-volume solutions (more than 60 mL per nostril per application). Eight studies used hypertonic saline, five used isotonic saline and three studies did not provide this information. Two studies used two different types of saline solutions. Seven studies did not say how they were funded. The other seven were funded either by the investigators' department or research grants from regional or national government. No studies were funded by pharmaceutical companies. Nasal saline irrigation compared with no saline irrigation Nasal saline irrigation may have benefits in both adults and children in relieving the symptoms of allergic rhinitis compared to no saline irrigation and it is unlikely to be associated with adverse effects. It is not possible to tell from this review whether there is a difference between the different volumes and concentrations of saline solution. Adding nasal saline irrigation onto 'pharmacological' allergic rhinitis treatment It is uncertain whether adding nasal saline irrigation to pharmacological treatment (intranasal steroids or oral antihistamines) helps to improve the symptoms of allergic rhinitis compared to using pharmacological treatments alone. The use of nasal saline irrigation is unlikely to be associated with adverse effects. Nasal saline irrigation compared to 'pharmacological' allergic rhinitis treatment There is not enough evidence to know whether nasal saline irrigation is better, worse or the same as using intranasal steroids. No studies reporting the outcomes we were interested in compared nasal saline irrigation with oral antihistamines. The overall quality of evidence for nasal saline irrigation compared with no saline treatment was eitherlow quality (our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect) or very low quality (we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect). This was because the studies were mostly very small and used different methods to measure the same outcome. Since saline irrigation could provide a cheap, safe and acceptable alternative to intranasal steroids and antihistamines further high-quality studies are needed." } ]	*TASK* the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature *INPUT* the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature *OUTPUT* the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature *DOCUMENTATION* *EXAMPLES* Input: We included 14 studies (747 participants). The studies included children (seven studies, 499 participants) and adults (seven studies, 248 participants). No studies reported outcomes beyond three months follow-up. Saline volumes ranged from 'very low' to 'high' volume. Where stated, studies used either hypertonic or isotonic saline solution. Nasal saline versus no saline treatment All seven studies (112 adults; 332 children) evaluating this comparison used different scoring systems for patient-reported disease severity, so we pooled the data using the standardised mean difference (SMD). Saline irrigation may improve patient-reported disease severity compared with no saline at up to four weeks (SMD -1.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.84 to -0.81; 407 participants; 6 studies; low quality) and between four weeks and three months (SMD -1.44, 95% CI -2.39 to -0.48; 167 participants; 5 studies; low quality). Although the evidence was low quality the SMD values at both time points are considered large effect sizes. Subgroup analysis showed the improvement in both adults and children. Subgroup analyses for volume and tonicity were inconclusive due to heterogeneity. Two studies reported methods for recording adverse effects and five studies mentioned them. Two studies (240 children) reported no adverse effects (epistaxis or local discomfort) in either group and three only reported no adverse effects in the saline group. One study (48 children) reported disease-specific HRQL using a modified RCQ-36 scale. It was uncertain whether there was a difference between the groups at any of the specified time points (very low quality). No other secondary outcomes were reported. Nasal saline versus no saline with adjuvant use of intranasal steroids or oral antihistamines Three studies (40 adults; 79 children) compared saline with intranasal steroids versus intranasal steroids alone; one study (14 adults) compared saline with oral antihistamines versus oral antihistamines alone. It is uncertain if there is a difference in patient-reported disease severity at up to four weeks (SMD -0.60, 95% CI -1.34 to 0.15; 32 participants; 2 studies; very low quality) or from four weeks to three months (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.85 to 0.21; 58 participants; 2 studies; very low quality). Although none of the studies reported methods for recording adverse effects, three mentioned them: one study (40 adults; adjuvant intranasal steroids) reported no adverse effects (epistaxis or local discomfort) in either group; the other two only reported no adverse effects in the saline group. It is uncertain if saline irrigation in addition to pharmacological treatment improved disease-specific HRQL at four weeks to three months, compared with pharmacological treatment alone (SMD -1.26, 95% CI -2.47 to -0.05; 54 participants; 2 studies; very low quality). No other secondary outcomes were reported. Nasal saline versus intranasal steroids It is uncertain if there was a difference in patient-reported disease severity between nasal saline and intranasal steroids at up to four weeks (MD 1.06, 95% CI -1.65 to 3.77; 14 participants; 1 study), or between four weeks and three months (SMD 1.26, 95% CI -0.92 to 3.43; 97 participants; 3 studies), or indisease-specific HRQL between four weeks and three months (SMD 0.01, 95% CI -0.73 to 0.75; 83 participants; 2 studies). Only one study reported methods for recording adverse effects although three studies mentioned them. One (21 participants) reported two withdrawals due to adverse effects but did not describe these or state which group. Three studies reported no adverse effects (epistaxis or local discomfort) with saline, although one study reported that 27% of participants experienced local discomfort with steroid use. No other secondary outcomes were reported. Saline irrigation may reduce patient-reported disease severity compared with no saline irrigation at up to three months in both adults and children with allergic rhinitis, with no reported adverse effects. No data were available for any outcomes beyond three months. The overall quality of evidence was low or very low. The included studies were generally small and used a range of different outcome measures to report disease severity scores, with unclear validation. This review did not include direct comparisons of saline types (e.g. different volume, tonicity). Since saline irrigation could provide a cheap, safe and acceptable alternative to intranasal steroids and antihistamines further high-quality, adequately powered research in this area is warranted. Output:
CochranePLS1727	[ { "from": "human", "value": "*TASK\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nINPUT\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nOUTPUT\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nDOCUMENTATION\n\nEXAMPLES*\n\nInput: Nine studies involving 751 participants were included. Two of them produced effect sizes which showed a consistent and statistically significant difference in favour of the active drug. Combining all studies produced a pooled estimate of effect of 0.39 standard deviations (confidence interval, 0.24 to 0.54) in favour of the antidepressant measured by improvement in mood. There was high heterogeneity due to one strongly positive trial. Sensitivity analysis omitting this trial reduced the pooled effect to 0.17 (0.00 to 0.34). The pooled effect for inpatient and outpatient trials was highly sensitive to decisions about which combination of data was included but inpatient trials produced the lowest effects. The more conservative estimates from the present analysis found that differences between antidepressants and active placebos were small. This suggests that unblinding effects may inflate the efficacy of antidepressants in trials using inert placebos. Further research into unblinding is warranted.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "This review examined trials which compared antidepressants with 'active' placebos, that is placebos containing active substances which mimic side effects of antidepressants. Small differences were found in favour of antidepressants in terms of improvements in mood. This suggests that the effects of antidepressants may generally be overestimated and their placebo effects may be underestimated." } ]	*TASK* the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature *INPUT* the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature *OUTPUT* the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature *DOCUMENTATION* *EXAMPLES* Input: Nine studies involving 751 participants were included. Two of them produced effect sizes which showed a consistent and statistically significant difference in favour of the active drug. Combining all studies produced a pooled estimate of effect of 0.39 standard deviations (confidence interval, 0.24 to 0.54) in favour of the antidepressant measured by improvement in mood. There was high heterogeneity due to one strongly positive trial. Sensitivity analysis omitting this trial reduced the pooled effect to 0.17 (0.00 to 0.34). The pooled effect for inpatient and outpatient trials was highly sensitive to decisions about which combination of data was included but inpatient trials produced the lowest effects. The more conservative estimates from the present analysis found that differences between antidepressants and active placebos were small. This suggests that unblinding effects may inflate the efficacy of antidepressants in trials using inert placebos. Further research into unblinding is warranted. Output:
CochranePLS2738	[ { "from": "human", "value": "*TASK\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nINPUT\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nOUTPUT\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nDOCUMENTATION\n\nEXAMPLES*\n\nInput: We included eight studies involving a total of 27,557 participants with non-valvular AF and one or more risk factors for stroke; 26,601 of them were assigned to standard doses groups and included in the primary analysis. The DTIs: dabigatran 110 mg twice daily and 150 mg twice daily (three studies, 12,355 participants), AZD0837 300 mg once per day (two studies, 233 participants) and ximelagatran 36 mg twice per day (three studies, 3726 participants) were compared with the VKA warfarin (10,287 participants). Overall risk of bias and statistical heterogeneity of the studies included were low. The odds of vascular death and ischaemic events were not significantly different between all DTIs and warfarin (odds ratio (OR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.05). Sensitivity analysis by dose of dabigatran on reduction in ischaemic events and vascular mortality indicated that dabigatran 150 mg twice daily was superior to warfarin although the effect estimate was of borderline statistical significance (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.99). Sensitivity analyses by other factors did not alter the results. Fatal and non-fatal major bleeding events, including haemorrhagic strokes, were less frequent with the DTIs (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.97). Adverse events that led to discontinuation of treatment were significantly more frequent with the DTIs (OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.82 to 2.61). All-cause mortality was similar between DTIs and warfarin (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.01). DTIs were as efficacious as VKAs for the composite outcome of vascular death and ischaemic events and only the dose of dabigatran 150 mg twice daily was found to be superior to warfarin. DTIs were associated with fewer major haemorrhagic events, including haemorrhagic strokes. Adverse events that led to discontinuation of treatment occurred more frequently with the DTIs. We detected no difference in death from all causes.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "We included eight studies, identified up to October 2013, evaluating the effect of DTIs versus warfarin in people with non-valvular AF. DTIs included were dabigatran 110 mg or 150 mg twice daily (three studies, 12,355 participants), AZD0837 300 mg once a day (two studies, 233 participants) and ximelagatran 36 mg twice daily (three studies, 3726 participants). Of the total number of participants included in this review 61% were men, and the mean age of participants in all studies was over 70 years. Follow-up periods after the end of study medication ranged from zero to four weeks. We conducted the analyses excluding ximelagatran because this drug was withdrawn from the market owing to toxic effects on the liver. We evaluated the effectiveness of the treatment by the number of vascular deaths and ischaemic events. We evaluated safety by the number of (1) fatal and non-fatal major bleeding events, including haemorrhagic strokes, (2) adverse events other than bleeding and ischaemic events that led to treatment discontinuation, and (3) death from all causes. There was no difference in the number of vascular deaths and ischaemic events between all DTIs combined and warfarin, although dabigatran 150 mg twice daily was superior to warfarin for this outcome. Major bleeding events were less frequent with the DTIs, making them a potentially safer alternative to anticoagulation in people at high risk. The adverse events that led participants to discontinue treatment were more frequent with the DTIs. Death from all causes was similar between DTIs and warfarin. We judged the quality of all eight included studies to be adequate to address the main objectives of the review." } ]	*TASK* the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature *INPUT* the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature *OUTPUT* the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature *DOCUMENTATION* *EXAMPLES* Input: We included eight studies involving a total of 27,557 participants with non-valvular AF and one or more risk factors for stroke; 26,601 of them were assigned to standard doses groups and included in the primary analysis. The DTIs: dabigatran 110 mg twice daily and 150 mg twice daily (three studies, 12,355 participants), AZD0837 300 mg once per day (two studies, 233 participants) and ximelagatran 36 mg twice per day (three studies, 3726 participants) were compared with the VKA warfarin (10,287 participants). Overall risk of bias and statistical heterogeneity of the studies included were low. The odds of vascular death and ischaemic events were not significantly different between all DTIs and warfarin (odds ratio (OR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.05). Sensitivity analysis by dose of dabigatran on reduction in ischaemic events and vascular mortality indicated that dabigatran 150 mg twice daily was superior to warfarin although the effect estimate was of borderline statistical significance (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.99). Sensitivity analyses by other factors did not alter the results. Fatal and non-fatal major bleeding events, including haemorrhagic strokes, were less frequent with the DTIs (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.97). Adverse events that led to discontinuation of treatment were significantly more frequent with the DTIs (OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.82 to 2.61). All-cause mortality was similar between DTIs and warfarin (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.01). DTIs were as efficacious as VKAs for the composite outcome of vascular death and ischaemic events and only the dose of dabigatran 150 mg twice daily was found to be superior to warfarin. DTIs were associated with fewer major haemorrhagic events, including haemorrhagic strokes. Adverse events that led to discontinuation of treatment occurred more frequently with the DTIs. We detected no difference in death from all causes. Output:
CochranePLS3410	[ { "from": "human", "value": "*TASK\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nINPUT\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nOUTPUT\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nDOCUMENTATION\n\nEXAMPLES*\n\nInput: We included 77 randomised clinical trials, which included 6753 participants with fatty liver disease. The risks of bias (overestimation of benefits and underestimation of harms) was high in all trials. The mean sample size was 88 participants (ranging from 40 to 200 participants) per trial. Seventy-five different herbal medicine products were tested. Herbal medicines tested in the randomised trials included single-herb products (Gynostemma pentaphyllum, Panax notoginseng, andPrunus armeniaca), proprietary herbal medicines commercially available, and combination formulas prescribed by practitioners. The most commonly used herbs wereCrataegus pinnatifida,Salvia miltiorrhiza,Alisma orientalis,Bupleurum chinense,Cassia obtusifolia, Astragalus membranaceous, and Rheum palmatum. None of the trials reported death, hepatic-related morbidity, quality of life, or costs. A large number of trials reported positive effects on putative surrogate outcomes such as serum aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, glutamyltransferase, alkaline phosphatases, ultrasound, and computed tomography scan. Twenty-seven trials reported adverse effects and found no significant difference between herbal medicines versus control. However, the risk of bias of the included trials was high. The outcomes were ultrasound findings in 22 trials, liver computed tomography findings in eight trials, aspartate aminotransferase levels in 64 trials, alanine aminotransferase activity in 77 trials, and glutamyltransferase activities in 44 trials. Six herbal medicines showed statistically significant beneficial effects on ultrasound, four on liver computed tomography, 42 on aspartate aminotransferase activity, 49 on alanine aminotransferase activity, three on alkaline phosphatases activity, and 32 on glutamyltransferase activity compared with control interventions. Some herbal medicines seemed to have positive effects on aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, ultrasound, and computed tomography. We found no significant difference on adverse effects between herbal medicine and control groups. The findings are not conclusive due to the high risk of bias of the included trials and the limited number of trials testing individual herbal medicines. Accordingly, there is also high risk of random errors.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "We included 77 randomised clinical trials in this review, which tested 75 herbal medicines. All trials had high risk of systematic errors (ie, bias or risk of overestimation of benefits and overestimation of harms) as well as high risks of random errors (ie, play of chance) due to the small number of people in the trials. Herbal medicines tested in the randomised clinical trials included single-herb products (Gynostemma pentaphyllum,Panax notoginseng, andPrunus armeniaca), commercially available branded herbal medicines, and combination formulas prescribed by practitioners. Herbs most commonly included as an ingredient in different products wereCrataegus pinnatifida,Salvia miltiorrhiza,Alisma orientalis,Bupleurum chinense,Cassia obtusifolia,Astragalus membranaceous, andRheum palmatum. We could not combine the results of the trials due to the range of different herbs used. We could not reach any conclusions about the use of herbal medicines for people with fatty liver disease as none of the trials reported results on death, liver-related illnesses, quality of life, or costs. A number of trials showed positive effects of herbal medicines compared with control interventions on enzyme activity (enzymes are proteins that cause chemical reactions in the body; eg, serum aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, glutamyltransferase, alkaline phosphatases), ultrasound scan findings, and computed tomography scan findings. No serious adverse effects were reported for herbal medicines. However, the methodology of the trials had high risk of systematic errors (bias). Furthermore, the individual herbs were seldomly retested, and all trials had relatively low numbers of people, which increases the risk of random errors (play of chance). Therefore, the findings are inconclusive, and rigorously conducted randomised clinical trials are required to establish the benefits and harms of herbal medicines for fatty liver disease." } ]	*TASK* the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature *INPUT* the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature *OUTPUT* the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature *DOCUMENTATION* *EXAMPLES* Input: We included 77 randomised clinical trials, which included 6753 participants with fatty liver disease. The risks of bias (overestimation of benefits and underestimation of harms) was high in all trials. The mean sample size was 88 participants (ranging from 40 to 200 participants) per trial. Seventy-five different herbal medicine products were tested. Herbal medicines tested in the randomised trials included single-herb products (Gynostemma pentaphyllum, Panax notoginseng, andPrunus armeniaca), proprietary herbal medicines commercially available, and combination formulas prescribed by practitioners. The most commonly used herbs wereCrataegus pinnatifida,Salvia miltiorrhiza,Alisma orientalis,Bupleurum chinense,Cassia obtusifolia, Astragalus membranaceous, and Rheum palmatum. None of the trials reported death, hepatic-related morbidity, quality of life, or costs. A large number of trials reported positive effects on putative surrogate outcomes such as serum aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, glutamyltransferase, alkaline phosphatases, ultrasound, and computed tomography scan. Twenty-seven trials reported adverse effects and found no significant difference between herbal medicines versus control. However, the risk of bias of the included trials was high. The outcomes were ultrasound findings in 22 trials, liver computed tomography findings in eight trials, aspartate aminotransferase levels in 64 trials, alanine aminotransferase activity in 77 trials, and glutamyltransferase activities in 44 trials. Six herbal medicines showed statistically significant beneficial effects on ultrasound, four on liver computed tomography, 42 on aspartate aminotransferase activity, 49 on alanine aminotransferase activity, three on alkaline phosphatases activity, and 32 on glutamyltransferase activity compared with control interventions. Some herbal medicines seemed to have positive effects on aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, ultrasound, and computed tomography. We found no significant difference on adverse effects between herbal medicine and control groups. The findings are not conclusive due to the high risk of bias of the included trials and the limited number of trials testing individual herbal medicines. Accordingly, there is also high risk of random errors. Output:
CochranePLS1177	[ { "from": "human", "value": "*TASK\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nINPUT\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nOUTPUT\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nDOCUMENTATION\n\nEXAMPLES*\n\nInput: Five studies were eligible for inclusion (329 patients). Three studies (270 patients) compared low molecular weight heparin to placebo, one study (34 patients) compared LMWH in addition to standard therapy, and one study (25 patients) compared UFH to corticosteroids. The study comparing UFH to corticosteroids was rated at high risk of bias due to a single-blind design. The study that compared the addition of LMWH to standard therapy to standard therapy alone was rated at high risk of bias due to open-label design. The other three studies were rated as low risk of bias. LMWH administered subcutaneously showed no benefit over placebo for any outcome, including clinical remission (very low quality of evidence), and clinical, endoscopic, or histological improvement. High dose LMWH administered via an extended colon-release tablet demonstrated benefit over placebo for clinical remission (RR 1.39; 95% CI 1.09 to 1.77 ; P = 0.008; very low quality of evidence), clinical improvement (RR 1.28; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.55; P = 0.01; very low quality of evidence), and endoscopic improvement (RR 1.21; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.47 ; P = 0.05) but not endoscopic remission or histologic improvement. LMWH was not beneficial when added to standard therapy for clinical remission, clinical improvement, endoscopic remission or endoscopic improvement. LMWH was well-tolerated but provided no significant benefit for quality of life. One study examining UFH versus corticosteroids for the treatment of severe UC demonstrated the inferiority of UFH for clinical improvement. More patients assigned to UFH had rectal hemorrhage as an adverse event. There is evidence to suggest that LMWH may be effective for the treatment of active UC. When administered by extended colon-release tablets, LMWH was more effective than placebo for treating outpatients with mild to moderate disease. This benefit needs to be confirmed by further randomized controlled studies. The same benefits were not seen when LMWH was administered subcutaneously at lower doses. There is no evidence to support the use of UFH for the treatment of active UC. A further trial of UFH in patients with mild disease may also be justified. Any benefit found would need to be weighed against a possible increased risk of rectal bleeding in patients with active UC.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "The researchers identified five studies that included a total of 329 patients. Three studies (270 patients) compared low molecular weight heparin to placebo (e.g. a sugar pill), one study (34 patients) compared low molecular weight heparin in addition to standard therapy, and one study (25 patients) compared unfractionated heparin to steroids. The study comparing unfractionated heparin to steroids and the study that compared the addition of low molecular weight heparin to standard therapy to standard therapy alone was judged to be of low quality. The three placebo-controlled studies were judged to be of high quality. In one small study, unfractionated heparin was worse than steroids for inducing clinical improvement (i.e. reduction of symptoms) in people with severe ulcerative colitis. In addition, rectal bleeding was more frequent among people who received unfractionated heparin. In another small study low molecular weight heparin used with standard therapy provided no additional benefit over standard therapy alone in adults with active ulcerative colitis. Low molecular weight heparin administered by injection showed no benefit over placebo for any outcome, including clinical remission (very low quality of evidence), clinical improvement and endoscopic improvement (i.e. healing of inflammation). High dose low molecular weight heparin administered via an extended colon-release tablet demonstrated benefit over placebo for clinical remission, clinical improvement. and endoscopic improvement. This result suggests that high dose low molecular weight heparin administered by extended-release capsules may be effective for the treatment of active ulcerative colitis. However, this result needs to be verified by future clinical trials." } ]	*TASK* the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature *INPUT* the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature *OUTPUT* the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature *DOCUMENTATION* *EXAMPLES* Input: Five studies were eligible for inclusion (329 patients). Three studies (270 patients) compared low molecular weight heparin to placebo, one study (34 patients) compared LMWH in addition to standard therapy, and one study (25 patients) compared UFH to corticosteroids. The study comparing UFH to corticosteroids was rated at high risk of bias due to a single-blind design. The study that compared the addition of LMWH to standard therapy to standard therapy alone was rated at high risk of bias due to open-label design. The other three studies were rated as low risk of bias. LMWH administered subcutaneously showed no benefit over placebo for any outcome, including clinical remission (very low quality of evidence), and clinical, endoscopic, or histological improvement. High dose LMWH administered via an extended colon-release tablet demonstrated benefit over placebo for clinical remission (RR 1.39; 95% CI 1.09 to 1.77 ; P = 0.008; very low quality of evidence), clinical improvement (RR 1.28; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.55; P = 0.01; very low quality of evidence), and endoscopic improvement (RR 1.21; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.47 ; P = 0.05) but not endoscopic remission or histologic improvement. LMWH was not beneficial when added to standard therapy for clinical remission, clinical improvement, endoscopic remission or endoscopic improvement. LMWH was well-tolerated but provided no significant benefit for quality of life. One study examining UFH versus corticosteroids for the treatment of severe UC demonstrated the inferiority of UFH for clinical improvement. More patients assigned to UFH had rectal hemorrhage as an adverse event. There is evidence to suggest that LMWH may be effective for the treatment of active UC. When administered by extended colon-release tablets, LMWH was more effective than placebo for treating outpatients with mild to moderate disease. This benefit needs to be confirmed by further randomized controlled studies. The same benefits were not seen when LMWH was administered subcutaneously at lower doses. There is no evidence to support the use of UFH for the treatment of active UC. A further trial of UFH in patients with mild disease may also be justified. Any benefit found would need to be weighed against a possible increased risk of rectal bleeding in patients with active UC. Output:
CochranePLS1106	[ { "from": "human", "value": "*TASK\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nINPUT\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nOUTPUT\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nDOCUMENTATION\n\nEXAMPLES*\n\nInput: The update search did not identify any additional studies. We identified one RCT that included people with high-risk neuroblastoma who received HDCT followed by autologous HSCT (N = 98) after a first random allocation and who received retinoic acid (13-cis-retinoic acid; N = 50) or no further therapy (N = 48) after a second random allocation. These 98 participants had no progressive disease after HDCT followed by autologous HSCT. There was no clear evidence of difference between the treatment groups either in overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 1.63; one trial; P = 0.66) or in event-free survival (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.49; one trial; P = 0.59). We calculated the HR values using the complete follow-up period of the trial. The study also reported overall survival estimates at a fixed point in time. At the time point of five years, the survival estimate was reported to be 59% for the retinoic acid group and 41% for the no-further-therapy group (P value not reported). We did not identify results for treatment-related mortality, progression-free survival, early or late toxicity, or health-related quality of life. We could not rule out the possible presence of selection bias, performance bias, attrition bias, and other bias. We judged the evidence to be of low quality for overall survival and event-free survival, downgraded because of study limitations and imprecision. We identified one RCT that evaluated additional retinoic acid as part of a postconsolidation therapy after HDCT followed by autologous HSCT versus no further therapy in people with high-risk neuroblastoma. There was no clear evidence of a difference in overall survival and event-free survival between the treatment alternatives. This could be the result of low power. Information on other outcomes was not available. This trial was performed in the 1990s, since when many changes in treatment and risk classification have occurred. Based on the currently available evidence, we are therefore uncertain about the effects of retinoic acid in people with high-risk neuroblastoma. More research is needed for a definitive conclusion.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "The evidence is current to 24 November 2016. We included a single randomised trial with 50 people allocated to the addition of retinoic acid after high-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation, and 48 people allocated to the same treatment but without the addition of retinoic acid. The update search did not identify any new studies. Overall survival and event-free survival were no different between the two treatment alternatives. Other outcomes, including those concerning adverse events, were not adequately reported. Additional retinoic acid as part of a postconsolidation therapy after high-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation may not improve survival in people with high-risk neuroblastoma, and we lack information on its safety. More research is needed before we can draw solid conclusions. The evidence is based on a single study. The quality of the evidence in this single included study is low." } ]	*TASK* the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature *INPUT* the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature *OUTPUT* the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature *DOCUMENTATION* *EXAMPLES* Input: The update search did not identify any additional studies. We identified one RCT that included people with high-risk neuroblastoma who received HDCT followed by autologous HSCT (N = 98) after a first random allocation and who received retinoic acid (13-cis-retinoic acid; N = 50) or no further therapy (N = 48) after a second random allocation. These 98 participants had no progressive disease after HDCT followed by autologous HSCT. There was no clear evidence of difference between the treatment groups either in overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 1.63; one trial; P = 0.66) or in event-free survival (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.49; one trial; P = 0.59). We calculated the HR values using the complete follow-up period of the trial. The study also reported overall survival estimates at a fixed point in time. At the time point of five years, the survival estimate was reported to be 59% for the retinoic acid group and 41% for the no-further-therapy group (P value not reported). We did not identify results for treatment-related mortality, progression-free survival, early or late toxicity, or health-related quality of life. We could not rule out the possible presence of selection bias, performance bias, attrition bias, and other bias. We judged the evidence to be of low quality for overall survival and event-free survival, downgraded because of study limitations and imprecision. We identified one RCT that evaluated additional retinoic acid as part of a postconsolidation therapy after HDCT followed by autologous HSCT versus no further therapy in people with high-risk neuroblastoma. There was no clear evidence of a difference in overall survival and event-free survival between the treatment alternatives. This could be the result of low power. Information on other outcomes was not available. This trial was performed in the 1990s, since when many changes in treatment and risk classification have occurred. Based on the currently available evidence, we are therefore uncertain about the effects of retinoic acid in people with high-risk neuroblastoma. More research is needed for a definitive conclusion. Output:
CochranePLS3268	[ { "from": "human", "value": "*TASK\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nINPUT\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nOUTPUT\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nDOCUMENTATION\n\nEXAMPLES*\n\nInput: For this update, 12 trials (1557 women and 1661 infants) were included. Dexamethasone was associated with a reduced risk of intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH) compared with betamethasone (risk ratio (RR) 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21 to 0.92; four trials, 549 infants). No statistically significant differences were seen for other primary outcomes: respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.27; five trials, 753 infants) and perinatal death (neonatal death RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.54 to 3.67; four trials, 596 infants). Similarly, very few differences were seen for secondary outcomes such as rate of admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) although in one trial, those infants exposed to dexamethasone, compared with betamethasone, had a significantly shorter length of NICU admission (mean difference (MD) -0.91 days, 95% CI -1.77 to -0.05; 70 infants). Results for biophysical parameters were inconsistent, but mostly no clinically important differences were seen. Compared with intramuscular dexamethasone, oral dexamethasone significantly increased the incidence of neonatal sepsis (RR 8.48, 95% CI 1.11 to 64.93) in one trial of 183 infants. No statistically significant differences were seen for other outcomes reported. Apart from a reduced maternal postpartum length of stay for women who received betamethasone at 12-hourly intervals compared to 24-hourly intervals in one trial (MD -0.73 days, 95% CI -1.28 to -0.18; 215 women), no differences in maternal or neonatal outcomes were seen between the different betamethasone dosing intervals assessed. Similarly, no significant differences in outcomes were seen when betamethasone acetate and phosphate was compared with betamethasone phosphate in one trial. It remains unclear whether one corticosteroid (or one particular regimen) has advantages over another. Dexamethasone may have some benefits compared with betamethasone such as less IVH, and a shorter length of stay in the NICU. The intramuscular route may have advantages over the oral route for dexamethasone, as identified in one small trial. Apart from the suggestion that 12-hour dosing may be as effective as 24-hour dosing of betamethasone based on one small trial, few other conclusions about optimal antenatal corticosteroid regimens were able to be made. No long-term results were available except for a small subgroup of 18 month old children in one trial. Trials comparing the commonly used corticosteroids are most urgently needed, as are trials of dosages and other variations in treatment regimens.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "Most trials have compared the two most commonly used corticosteroids before early birth, dexamethasone and betamethasone. In this review of 12 trials (involving 1557 women and 1661 infants) of moderate quality, 10 trials compared dexamethasone and betamethasone; one trial compared two different ways of giving dexamethasone and one trial compared two different ways of giving betamethasone. We found that dexamethasone and betamethasone showed similar results, although there was less bleeding of the brain and a shorter length of neonatal intensive care unit hospital stay for dexamethasone compared with betamethasone. On the basis of one trial, giving dexamethasone by injection (intramuscularly) may be better than giving the drug to the mother by mouth (orally). Usually the drug is given in two doses 24 hours apart and one trial showed that this interval could perhaps be reduced to 12 hours if required. We need more studies to establish which is the best drug and what is the best way to give it, and babies in these trials need to be followed up over a long period to monitor any effects on child and adult development." } ]	*TASK* the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature *INPUT* the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature *OUTPUT* the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature *DOCUMENTATION* *EXAMPLES* Input: For this update, 12 trials (1557 women and 1661 infants) were included. Dexamethasone was associated with a reduced risk of intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH) compared with betamethasone (risk ratio (RR) 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21 to 0.92; four trials, 549 infants). No statistically significant differences were seen for other primary outcomes: respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.27; five trials, 753 infants) and perinatal death (neonatal death RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.54 to 3.67; four trials, 596 infants). Similarly, very few differences were seen for secondary outcomes such as rate of admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) although in one trial, those infants exposed to dexamethasone, compared with betamethasone, had a significantly shorter length of NICU admission (mean difference (MD) -0.91 days, 95% CI -1.77 to -0.05; 70 infants). Results for biophysical parameters were inconsistent, but mostly no clinically important differences were seen. Compared with intramuscular dexamethasone, oral dexamethasone significantly increased the incidence of neonatal sepsis (RR 8.48, 95% CI 1.11 to 64.93) in one trial of 183 infants. No statistically significant differences were seen for other outcomes reported. Apart from a reduced maternal postpartum length of stay for women who received betamethasone at 12-hourly intervals compared to 24-hourly intervals in one trial (MD -0.73 days, 95% CI -1.28 to -0.18; 215 women), no differences in maternal or neonatal outcomes were seen between the different betamethasone dosing intervals assessed. Similarly, no significant differences in outcomes were seen when betamethasone acetate and phosphate was compared with betamethasone phosphate in one trial. It remains unclear whether one corticosteroid (or one particular regimen) has advantages over another. Dexamethasone may have some benefits compared with betamethasone such as less IVH, and a shorter length of stay in the NICU. The intramuscular route may have advantages over the oral route for dexamethasone, as identified in one small trial. Apart from the suggestion that 12-hour dosing may be as effective as 24-hour dosing of betamethasone based on one small trial, few other conclusions about optimal antenatal corticosteroid regimens were able to be made. No long-term results were available except for a small subgroup of 18 month old children in one trial. Trials comparing the commonly used corticosteroids are most urgently needed, as are trials of dosages and other variations in treatment regimens. Output:
CochranePLS2568	[ { "from": "human", "value": "*TASK\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nINPUT\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nOUTPUT\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nDOCUMENTATION\n\nEXAMPLES*\n\nInput: We identified four trials involving 1314 children. Three trials investigated the use of amoxicillin/clavulanic acid to prevent otitis and one investigated ampicillin to prevent pneumonia. The use of amoxicillin/clavulanic acid compared to placebo to prevent otitis showed a risk ratio (RR) of 0.70 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 1.11, three trials, 414 selected children, moderate-quality evidence). Methods of random sequence generation and allocation concealment were not clearly stated in two trials. Performance, detection and reporting bias could not be ruled out in three trials. Ampicillin compared to supportive care (continuation of breastfeeding, clearing of the nose and paracetamol for fever control) to prevent pneumonia showed a RR of 1.05 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.49, one trial, 889 selected children, moderate-quality evidence). The trial was non-blinded. Random sequence generation and allocation concealment methods were not clearly stated, so the possibility of reporting bias could not be ruled out. Harm outcomes could not be analysed as they were expressed only in percentages. We found no studies assessing mastoiditis, quinsy, abscess, meningitis, hospital admission or death. There is insufficient evidence for antibiotic use as a means of reducing the risk of otitis or pneumonia in children up to five years of age with undifferentiated ARIs. Further high-quality research is needed to provide more definitive evidence of the effectiveness of antibiotics in this population.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "In the trials treating otitis media, the quality of the evidence was moderate as the methods for avoiding bias were not clearly stated. Furthermore, in one trial a pharmaceutical company prepared the placebo syrup used in the trial. In the study treating pneumonia, we classified the quality of the evidence as moderate, because the families previously knew if their children were receiving antibiotics or not. Furthermore, the methods for avoiding bias were not clearly stated by the trial authors. Further high-quality research is needed to provide more definitive evidence of the effectiveness of antibiotics in this population." } ]	*TASK* the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature *INPUT* the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature *OUTPUT* the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature *DOCUMENTATION* *EXAMPLES* Input: We identified four trials involving 1314 children. Three trials investigated the use of amoxicillin/clavulanic acid to prevent otitis and one investigated ampicillin to prevent pneumonia. The use of amoxicillin/clavulanic acid compared to placebo to prevent otitis showed a risk ratio (RR) of 0.70 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 1.11, three trials, 414 selected children, moderate-quality evidence). Methods of random sequence generation and allocation concealment were not clearly stated in two trials. Performance, detection and reporting bias could not be ruled out in three trials. Ampicillin compared to supportive care (continuation of breastfeeding, clearing of the nose and paracetamol for fever control) to prevent pneumonia showed a RR of 1.05 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.49, one trial, 889 selected children, moderate-quality evidence). The trial was non-blinded. Random sequence generation and allocation concealment methods were not clearly stated, so the possibility of reporting bias could not be ruled out. Harm outcomes could not be analysed as they were expressed only in percentages. We found no studies assessing mastoiditis, quinsy, abscess, meningitis, hospital admission or death. There is insufficient evidence for antibiotic use as a means of reducing the risk of otitis or pneumonia in children up to five years of age with undifferentiated ARIs. Further high-quality research is needed to provide more definitive evidence of the effectiveness of antibiotics in this population. Output:
CochranePLS1431	[ { "from": "human", "value": "*TASK\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nINPUT\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nOUTPUT\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nDOCUMENTATION\n\nEXAMPLES*\n\nInput: Five parallel and 26 crossover randomised controlled trials were identified. The quality of reporting was found to be poor. Pooled data from parallel studies shows a statistically non-significant preference for physiologic pacing (primarily dual chamber pacing) for the prevention of stroke, heart failure and mortality, and a statistically significant beneficial effect regarding the prevention of atrial fibrillation (odds ratio (OR) 0.79, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.93). Both parallel and crossover studies favour dual chamber pacing with regard to pacemaker syndrome (parallel: Peto OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.14; crossover: standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.74, 95% CI - 0.95 to -0.52). Pooled data from crossover studies shows a statistically significant trend towards dual chamber pacing being more favourable in terms of exercise capacity (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.03 to -0.45). No individual studies reported a significantly more favourable outcome with single chamber ventricular pacing. This review shows a trend towards greater effectiveness with dual chamber pacing compared to single chamber ventricular pacing, which supports the current British Pacing and Electrophysiology Group's Guidelines regarding atrioventricular block. Additional randomised controlled trial evidence from ongoing trials in this area will further inform the debate.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "The review of trials found that dual chamber pacemakers tended to prevent more subsequent heart problems than single chamber ventricular pacemakers. The impact on people's overall quality of life is uncertain. The review did not investigate the relative benefits or risks of surgery to upgrade to a dual chamber pacemaker." } ]	*TASK* the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature *INPUT* the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature *OUTPUT* the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature *DOCUMENTATION* *EXAMPLES* Input: Five parallel and 26 crossover randomised controlled trials were identified. The quality of reporting was found to be poor. Pooled data from parallel studies shows a statistically non-significant preference for physiologic pacing (primarily dual chamber pacing) for the prevention of stroke, heart failure and mortality, and a statistically significant beneficial effect regarding the prevention of atrial fibrillation (odds ratio (OR) 0.79, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.93). Both parallel and crossover studies favour dual chamber pacing with regard to pacemaker syndrome (parallel: Peto OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.14; crossover: standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.74, 95% CI - 0.95 to -0.52). Pooled data from crossover studies shows a statistically significant trend towards dual chamber pacing being more favourable in terms of exercise capacity (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.03 to -0.45). No individual studies reported a significantly more favourable outcome with single chamber ventricular pacing. This review shows a trend towards greater effectiveness with dual chamber pacing compared to single chamber ventricular pacing, which supports the current British Pacing and Electrophysiology Group's Guidelines regarding atrioventricular block. Additional randomised controlled trial evidence from ongoing trials in this area will further inform the debate. Output:
CochranePLS1825	[ { "from": "human", "value": "*TASK\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nINPUT\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nOUTPUT\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nDOCUMENTATION\n\nEXAMPLES*\n\nInput: We included 13 trials in this review. Eight studies reported data on the Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID) in 2134 participants. We combined the data in a meta-analysis to assess the effect on development as measured by the Mental Development Index (MDI) and Psychomotor Development Index (PDI). There was no significant effect of zinc supplementation: the mean difference between the zinc supplementation and placebo groups on the MDI was -0.50 (95% confidence interval (CI) -2.06 to 1.06; P = 0.53; I2 = 70%) and the mean difference between the groups for the PDI was 1.54 (95% CI -2.26 to 5.34; P = 0.43; I2 = 93%). Most studies had low or unclear risk of bias but there was significant heterogeneity, which was not adequately explained by our subgroup analyses. The overall quality of evidence was considered 'moderate'. Two trials provided data on motor milestone attainment. There was no significant difference in the time to attainment of milestones between the placebo group and the zinc supplementation group in either of the studies. No study provided data on cognition score or intelligence quotient (IQ) or on adverse effects of zinc supplementation. There is no convincing evidence that zinc supplementation to infants or children results in improved motor or mental development.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "The review authors searched the medical literature for studies that evaluated mental and motor development in infants and children randomly assigned to receive either zinc supplements or a 'placebo' (fake) supplement. We found 13 relevant studies. Eight studies measured development using the Mental Development Index and the Psychomotor Development Index of the Bayley Scales of Infant Development. We found no difference between the results for those who had taken zinc supplements and those who had taken a placebo. Two studies measured children's attainment of motor milestones. Again, no difference as found whether zinc supplements were taken or not. No study measured possible side effects of zinc supplementation such as vomiting, diarrhea or anemia. Overall, the results of the studies provided no convincing evidence that zinc supplements had any beneficial effect on mental and motor development in infants and children." } ]	*TASK* the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature *INPUT* the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature *OUTPUT* the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature *DOCUMENTATION* *EXAMPLES* Input: We included 13 trials in this review. Eight studies reported data on the Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID) in 2134 participants. We combined the data in a meta-analysis to assess the effect on development as measured by the Mental Development Index (MDI) and Psychomotor Development Index (PDI). There was no significant effect of zinc supplementation: the mean difference between the zinc supplementation and placebo groups on the MDI was -0.50 (95% confidence interval (CI) -2.06 to 1.06; P = 0.53; I2 = 70%) and the mean difference between the groups for the PDI was 1.54 (95% CI -2.26 to 5.34; P = 0.43; I2 = 93%). Most studies had low or unclear risk of bias but there was significant heterogeneity, which was not adequately explained by our subgroup analyses. The overall quality of evidence was considered 'moderate'. Two trials provided data on motor milestone attainment. There was no significant difference in the time to attainment of milestones between the placebo group and the zinc supplementation group in either of the studies. No study provided data on cognition score or intelligence quotient (IQ) or on adverse effects of zinc supplementation. There is no convincing evidence that zinc supplementation to infants or children results in improved motor or mental development. Output:
CochranePLS2544	[ { "from": "human", "value": "*TASK\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nINPUT\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nOUTPUT\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nDOCUMENTATION\n\nEXAMPLES*\n\nInput: Eleven studies, 1592 participants, fulfilled the criteria of inclusion and were included in the review. The studies considered five different psychosocial interventions and two pharmacological treatments (methadone and buprenorphine). Compared to any pharmacological treatment alone, the association of any psychosocial with any pharmacological was shown to significantly reduce dropouts RR 0.71 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.85), use of opiate during the treatment, RR 0.82 (95% CI 0.71 to 0.93), at follow up RR 0.66 (95% IC 0.53 to 0.82) and clinical absences during the treatment RR 0.48 (95%CI 0.38 to 0.59). Moreover, with the evidence currently available, there are no data supporting a single psychosocial approach. Psychosocial treatments offered in addition to pharmacological detoxification treatments are effective in terms of completion of treatment, use of opiate, participants abstinent at follow-up and clinical attendance. The evidence produced by this review is limited due to the small number of participants included in the studies, the heterogeneity of the assessment or the lack of detailed outcome information that prevented the possibility of cumulative analysis for several outcomes. Nevertheless it seems desirable to develop adjunct psychosocial approaches that might make detoxification more effective.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "The review authors searched the medical literature and found evidence that providing a psychosocial treatment in addition to pharmacological detoxification treatment to adults who are dependent on heroin use is effective in facilitating opioid detoxification. This conclusion is based on eleven controlled studies involving 1592 adults. The addition of a psychosocial treatment to substitution detoxification treatment improved the number of people who completed treatment (relative risk (RR) 1.47), reduced the use of opiate (RR 0.82), increased abstinence from opiate at follow up (RR 2.43) and halved the number of failures to attend clinic absences (RR 0.48). The findings of an improved rate of clinical attendance may help in suppressing illicit drug use and provides clinical staff with more opportunities to counsel patients in psychiatric, employment and other drug and non-drug related areas. Variations in the populations who are substance users and use of a wide range of different psychosocial interventions means that it is difficult to single out particular therapeutic interventions." } ]	*TASK* the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature *INPUT* the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature *OUTPUT* the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature *DOCUMENTATION* *EXAMPLES* Input: Eleven studies, 1592 participants, fulfilled the criteria of inclusion and were included in the review. The studies considered five different psychosocial interventions and two pharmacological treatments (methadone and buprenorphine). Compared to any pharmacological treatment alone, the association of any psychosocial with any pharmacological was shown to significantly reduce dropouts RR 0.71 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.85), use of opiate during the treatment, RR 0.82 (95% CI 0.71 to 0.93), at follow up RR 0.66 (95% IC 0.53 to 0.82) and clinical absences during the treatment RR 0.48 (95%CI 0.38 to 0.59). Moreover, with the evidence currently available, there are no data supporting a single psychosocial approach. Psychosocial treatments offered in addition to pharmacological detoxification treatments are effective in terms of completion of treatment, use of opiate, participants abstinent at follow-up and clinical attendance. The evidence produced by this review is limited due to the small number of participants included in the studies, the heterogeneity of the assessment or the lack of detailed outcome information that prevented the possibility of cumulative analysis for several outcomes. Nevertheless it seems desirable to develop adjunct psychosocial approaches that might make detoxification more effective. Output:
CochranePLS155	[ { "from": "human", "value": "*TASK\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nINPUT\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nOUTPUT\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nDOCUMENTATION\n\nEXAMPLES*\n\nInput: From 16,144 citations, 71 papers described IQCODE test accuracy. We included 10 papers (11 independent datasets) representing data from 2644 individuals (n = 379 (14%) with dementia). Using IQCODE cut-offs commonly employed in clinical practice (3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6) the sensitivity and specificity of IQCODE for diagnosis of dementia across the studies were generally above 75%. Taking an IQCODE threshold of 3.3 (or closest available) the sensitivity was 0.80 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.85); specificity was 0.84 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.90); positive likelihood ratio was 5.2 (95% CI 3.7 to 7.5) and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.23 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.29). Comparative analysis suggested no significant difference in the test accuracy of the 16 and 26-item IQCODE tests and no significant difference in test accuracy by language of administration. There was little difference in sensitivity across our predefined diagnostic cut-points. There was substantial heterogeneity in the included studies. Sensitivity analyses removing potentially unrepresentative populations in these studies made little difference to the pooled data estimates. The majority of included papers had potential for bias, particularly around participant selection and sampling. The quality of reporting was suboptimal particularly regarding timing of assessments and descriptors of reproducibility and inter-observer variability. Published data suggest that if using the IQCODE for community dwelling older adults, the 16 item IQCODE may be preferable to the traditional scale due to lesser test burden and no obvious difference in accuracy. Although IQCODE test accuracy is in a range that many would consider 'reasonable', in the context of community or population settings the use of the IQCODE alone would result in substantial misdiagnosis and false reassurance. Across the included studies there were issues with heterogeneity, several potential biases and suboptimal reporting quality.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "We searched differing databases of published research for all papers relating to the accuracy of IQCODE for selecting those with dementia. We found eleven studies that tested diagnostic accuracy of IQCODE in community dwelling individuals, we were able to combine their findings to give a summary result. We compared two forms of IQCODE questionnaire and found that a short form with fewer questions was just as accurate as the original longer questionnaire. The overall accuracy of IQCODE was reasonable although not perfect. If IQCODE were to be used on its own for assessing large populations of older adults, it would label many people with dementia who do not have the disease and also miss the diagnosis in a substantial proportion." } ]	*TASK* the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature *INPUT* the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature *OUTPUT* the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature *DOCUMENTATION* *EXAMPLES* Input: From 16,144 citations, 71 papers described IQCODE test accuracy. We included 10 papers (11 independent datasets) representing data from 2644 individuals (n = 379 (14%) with dementia). Using IQCODE cut-offs commonly employed in clinical practice (3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6) the sensitivity and specificity of IQCODE for diagnosis of dementia across the studies were generally above 75%. Taking an IQCODE threshold of 3.3 (or closest available) the sensitivity was 0.80 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.85); specificity was 0.84 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.90); positive likelihood ratio was 5.2 (95% CI 3.7 to 7.5) and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.23 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.29). Comparative analysis suggested no significant difference in the test accuracy of the 16 and 26-item IQCODE tests and no significant difference in test accuracy by language of administration. There was little difference in sensitivity across our predefined diagnostic cut-points. There was substantial heterogeneity in the included studies. Sensitivity analyses removing potentially unrepresentative populations in these studies made little difference to the pooled data estimates. The majority of included papers had potential for bias, particularly around participant selection and sampling. The quality of reporting was suboptimal particularly regarding timing of assessments and descriptors of reproducibility and inter-observer variability. Published data suggest that if using the IQCODE for community dwelling older adults, the 16 item IQCODE may be preferable to the traditional scale due to lesser test burden and no obvious difference in accuracy. Although IQCODE test accuracy is in a range that many would consider 'reasonable', in the context of community or population settings the use of the IQCODE alone would result in substantial misdiagnosis and false reassurance. Across the included studies there were issues with heterogeneity, several potential biases and suboptimal reporting quality. Output:
CochranePLS2	[ { "from": "human", "value": "*TASK\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nINPUT\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nOUTPUT\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nDOCUMENTATION\n\nEXAMPLES*\n\nInput: We included 13 studies with a total of 721 participants in the review. The studies were observational, 12 studies had only one relevant treatment arm and no control and for the one study with a control arm, very few details were given. The risk of bias was high and the certainty of evidence was graded as very low for all outcomes. Due to heterogeneity of data, meta-analysis was not performed and therefore the data were synthesised via a narrative summary. The evidence for benefit derived from PN was very low for survival and quality of life. All the studies measured overall survival and 636 (88%) of participants were deceased at the end of the study. However there were varying definitions of overall survival that yielded median survival intervals between 15 to 155 days (range three to 1278 days). Three studies used validated measures of quality of life. The results from assessment of quality of life were equivocal; one study reported improvements up until three months and two studies reported approximately similar numbers of participants with improvements and deterioration. Different quality of life scales were used in each of the studies and quality of life was measured at different time points. Due to the very low certainty of the evidence, we are very uncertain about the adverse events related to PN use. Adverse events were measured by nine studies and data for individual participants could be extracted from eight studies. This revealed that 32 of 260 (12%) patients developed a central venous catheter infection or were hospitalised because of complications related to PN. We are very uncertain whether HPN improves survival or quality of life in people with MBO as the certainty of evidence was very low for both outcomes. As the evidence base is limited and at high risk of bias, further higher-quality prospective studies are required.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "The benefits of PN are uncertain as the evidence is of very low certainty, provided mainly by studies that only looked at people who received PN rather than comparing patients who received PN with those who did not. As we found no randomised controlled trials, we have included the results from 13 observational studies with a total of 721 participants. For 12 of the studies, there was only one relevant treatment group and no control group. Therefore, the results are only for people receiving PN and we have no information about those not receiving it. The average survival time for people on PN varied from three to 1278 days. Only three studies measured quality of life using a recognised measure. One study found quality of life improved and two studies found similar numbers of people both improved and deteriorated. However, the three studies monitored quality of life at different points in time and measured it in different ways. Side effects occurred in 12% of people in the eight studies that measured them. Further research is needed to find out if PN is of benefit to people with an inoperable blockage of the bowel caused by advanced cancer." } ]	*TASK* the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature *INPUT* the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature *OUTPUT* the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature *DOCUMENTATION* *EXAMPLES* Input: We included 13 studies with a total of 721 participants in the review. The studies were observational, 12 studies had only one relevant treatment arm and no control and for the one study with a control arm, very few details were given. The risk of bias was high and the certainty of evidence was graded as very low for all outcomes. Due to heterogeneity of data, meta-analysis was not performed and therefore the data were synthesised via a narrative summary. The evidence for benefit derived from PN was very low for survival and quality of life. All the studies measured overall survival and 636 (88%) of participants were deceased at the end of the study. However there were varying definitions of overall survival that yielded median survival intervals between 15 to 155 days (range three to 1278 days). Three studies used validated measures of quality of life. The results from assessment of quality of life were equivocal; one study reported improvements up until three months and two studies reported approximately similar numbers of participants with improvements and deterioration. Different quality of life scales were used in each of the studies and quality of life was measured at different time points. Due to the very low certainty of the evidence, we are very uncertain about the adverse events related to PN use. Adverse events were measured by nine studies and data for individual participants could be extracted from eight studies. This revealed that 32 of 260 (12%) patients developed a central venous catheter infection or were hospitalised because of complications related to PN. We are very uncertain whether HPN improves survival or quality of life in people with MBO as the certainty of evidence was very low for both outcomes. As the evidence base is limited and at high risk of bias, further higher-quality prospective studies are required. Output:
CochranePLS633	[ { "from": "human", "value": "*TASK\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nINPUT\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nOUTPUT\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nDOCUMENTATION\n\nEXAMPLES*\n\nInput: Among 22 eligible trials, 17 pairs of groups comparisons were derived from 10 trials (3394 children with mild to moderate asthma), measured growth and contributed data to the meta-analysis. Trials used ICS (beclomethasone, budesonide, ciclesonide, fluticasone or mometasone) as monotherapy or as combination therapy with a long-acting beta2-agonist and generally compared low (50 to 100 μg) versus low to medium (200 μg) doses of hydrofluoroalkane (HFA)-beclomethasone equivalent over 12 to 52 weeks. In the four comparisons reporting linear growth over 12 months, a significant group difference was observed, clearly indicating lower growth velocity in the higher ICS dose group of 5.74 cm/y compared with 5.94 cm/y on lower-dose ICS (N = 728 school-aged children; mean difference (MD)0.20 cm/y, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 0.39; high-quality evidence): No statistically significant heterogeneity was noted between trials contributing data. The ICS molecules (ciclesonide, fluticasone, mometasone) used in these four comparisons did not significantly influence the magnitude of effect (X2 = 2.19 (2 df), P value 0.33). Subgroup analyses on age, baseline severity of airway obstruction, ICS dose and concomitant use of non-steroidal antiasthmatic drugs were not performed because of similarity across trials or inadequate reporting. A statistically significant group difference was noted in unadjusted change in height from zero to three months (nine comparisons; N = 944 children; MD 0.15, 95% CI -0.28 to -0.02; moderate-quality evidence) in favour of a higher ICS dose. No statistically significant group differences in change in height were observed at other time points, nor were such differences in weight, body mass index and skeletal maturation reported with low quality of evidence due to imprecision. In prepubescent school-aged children with mild to moderate persistent asthma, a small but statistically significant group difference in growth velocity was observed between low doses of ICS and low to medium doses of HFA-beclomethasone equivalent, favouring the use of low-dose ICS. No apparent difference in the magnitude of effect was associated with three molecules reporting one-year growth velocity, namely, mometasone, ciclesonide and fluticasone. In view of prevailing parents’ and physicians’ concerns about the growth suppressive effect of ICS, lack of or incomplete reporting of growth velocity in more than 86% (19/22) of eligible paediatric trials, including those using beclomethasone and budesonide, is a matter of concern. All future paediatric trials comparing different doses of ICS with or without placebo should systematically document growth. Findings support use of the minimal effective ICS dose in children with asthma.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "We studied whether a difference could be seen in the growth of children with persistent asthma who were using different doses of the same ICS molecule and the same delivery device. We found 22 eligible trials, but only 10 of them measured growth or other measures of interest. Overall, 3394 children included in the review combined 17 group comparisons (i.e. 17 pairs of groups of children with mild to moderate asthma using a particular dose and type of steroid in 10 trials). Trials used different ICS molecules (beclomethasone, budesonide, ciclesonide, fluticasone or mometasone) either on their own or in combination with a long-acting beta2-agonist (a drug used to open up the airways) and generally compared low doses of corticosteroids (50 to 100 μg) with low to medium (200 μg) doses of corticosteroids (converted in μg HFA-beclomethasone equivalent) over 12 to 52 weeks. We found a small but statistically significant group difference in growth over 12 months between these different doses clearly favouring the lower dose of ICS. The type of corticosteroid among newer molecules (ciclesonide, fluticasone, mometasone) did not seem to influence the impact on growth over one year. Differences in corticosteroid doses did not seem to affect the change in height, the gain in weight, the gain in body mass index and the maturation of bones. This review is based on a small number of trials that reported data and were conducted on children with mild to moderate asthma. Only 10 of 22 studies measured the few outcomes of interest for this review, and only four comparisons reported growth over 12 months. Our confidence in the quality of evidence is high for this outcome, however it is low to moderate for several other outcomes, depending on the number of trials reporting these outcomes. Moreover, a few outcomes were reported only by a single trial; as these findings have not been confirmed by other trials, we downgraded the evidence for these outcomes to low quality. An insufficient number of trials have compared the effect of a larger difference in dose, for example, between a high dose and a low dose of ICS and of other popular molecules such as budesonide and beclomethasone over a year or longer of treatment. We report an ICS dose–dependent reduction in growth velocity in prepubescent school-aged children with mild to moderate persistent asthma. The choice of ICS molecule (mometasone, ciclesonide or fluticasone) was not found to affect the level of growth velocity response over a year. The effect of corticosteroids on growth was not consistently reported: among 22 eligible trials, only four comparisons reported the effects of corticosteroids on growth over one year. In view of parents' and clinicians' concerns, lack of or incomplete reporting of growth is a matter of concern given the importance of the topic. We recommend that growth be systematically reported in all trials involving children taking ICS for three months or longer. Until further data comparing low versus high ICS dose and trials of longer duration are available, we recommend that the minimal effective ICS dose be used in all children with asthma." } ]	*TASK* the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature *INPUT* the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature *OUTPUT* the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature *DOCUMENTATION* *EXAMPLES* Input: Among 22 eligible trials, 17 pairs of groups comparisons were derived from 10 trials (3394 children with mild to moderate asthma), measured growth and contributed data to the meta-analysis. Trials used ICS (beclomethasone, budesonide, ciclesonide, fluticasone or mometasone) as monotherapy or as combination therapy with a long-acting beta2-agonist and generally compared low (50 to 100 μg) versus low to medium (200 μg) doses of hydrofluoroalkane (HFA)-beclomethasone equivalent over 12 to 52 weeks. In the four comparisons reporting linear growth over 12 months, a significant group difference was observed, clearly indicating lower growth velocity in the higher ICS dose group of 5.74 cm/y compared with 5.94 cm/y on lower-dose ICS (N = 728 school-aged children; mean difference (MD)0.20 cm/y, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 0.39; high-quality evidence): No statistically significant heterogeneity was noted between trials contributing data. The ICS molecules (ciclesonide, fluticasone, mometasone) used in these four comparisons did not significantly influence the magnitude of effect (X2 = 2.19 (2 df), P value 0.33). Subgroup analyses on age, baseline severity of airway obstruction, ICS dose and concomitant use of non-steroidal antiasthmatic drugs were not performed because of similarity across trials or inadequate reporting. A statistically significant group difference was noted in unadjusted change in height from zero to three months (nine comparisons; N = 944 children; MD 0.15, 95% CI -0.28 to -0.02; moderate-quality evidence) in favour of a higher ICS dose. No statistically significant group differences in change in height were observed at other time points, nor were such differences in weight, body mass index and skeletal maturation reported with low quality of evidence due to imprecision. In prepubescent school-aged children with mild to moderate persistent asthma, a small but statistically significant group difference in growth velocity was observed between low doses of ICS and low to medium doses of HFA-beclomethasone equivalent, favouring the use of low-dose ICS. No apparent difference in the magnitude of effect was associated with three molecules reporting one-year growth velocity, namely, mometasone, ciclesonide and fluticasone. In view of prevailing parents’ and physicians’ concerns about the growth suppressive effect of ICS, lack of or incomplete reporting of growth velocity in more than 86% (19/22) of eligible paediatric trials, including those using beclomethasone and budesonide, is a matter of concern. All future paediatric trials comparing different doses of ICS with or without placebo should systematically document growth. Findings support use of the minimal effective ICS dose in children with asthma. Output:
CochranePLS940	[ { "from": "human", "value": "*TASK\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nINPUT\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nOUTPUT\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nDOCUMENTATION\n\nEXAMPLES*\n\nInput: The review included four studies with 820 women. The included studies were of overall low risk of bias. Using GRADE methodology, we assessed the quality of evidence for the primary outcomes of this review to be very low- to low-quality evidence. Evidence was downgraded for imprecision as it was based on single, small trials with wide confidence intervals (CI). We were able to include data from three of the four included studies. In one study of women with both subclinical hypothyroidism and positive or negative anti-TPO antibodies (autoimmune disease), the evidence suggested that thyroxine replacement may have improved live birth rate (RR 2.13, 95% CI 1.07 to 4.21; 1 RCT, n = 64; low-quality evidence) and it may have led to similar miscarriage rates (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.98; 1 RCT, n = 64; low-quality evidence). The evidence suggested that women with both subclinical hypothyroidism and positive or negative anti-TPO antibodies would have a 25% chance of a live birth with placebo or no treatment, and that the chance of a live birth in these women using thyroxine would be between 27% and 100%. In women with normal thyroid function and thyroid autoimmunity (euthyroid ATD), treatment with thyroxine replacement compared with placebo or no treatment may have led to similar live birth rates (risk ratio (RR) 1.04, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.29; 2 RCTs, number of participants (n) = 686; I2 = 46%; low-quality evidence) and miscarriage rates (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.46, 2 RCTs, n = 686, I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). The evidence suggested that women with normal thyroid function and thyroid autoimmunity would have a 31% chance of a live birth with placebo or no treatment, and that the chance of a live birth in these women using thyroxine would be between 26% and 40%. Adverse events were rarely reported. One RCT reported 0/32 in the thyroxine replacement group and 1/32 preterm births in the control group in women diagnosed with subclinical hypothyroidism and positive or negative anti-TPO antibodies. One RCT reported 21/300 preterm births in the thyroxine replacement group and 19/300 preterm births in the control group in women diagnosed with positive anti-TPO antibodies. None of the RCTs reported on other maternal pregnancy complications, foetal complications or adverse effects of thyroxine. We could draw no clear conclusions in this systematic review due to the very low to low quality of the evidence reported.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "Cochrane authors performed a comprehensive literature search of the standard medical databases to 8 April 2019 in consultation with the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Information Specialist, for randomised clinical trials (RCTs: clinical studies where people are randomly put into one of two or more treatment groups) investigating the effect of thyroid hormones (levothyroxine) for women diagnosed with ATD or mildly underactive thyroid who were planning to undergo assisted reproduction. Two authors independently selected studies, evaluated them, extracted data and attempted to contact the authors where data were missing. We found four RCTs (with 820 women) that met our inclusion requirements. The thyroid hormones were administered in a range of doses to women diagnosed with mildly underactive thyroid or presence of thyroid antibodies (ATD). In women with mild thyroid hormone imbalance and unknown thyroid autoimmunity status, we were uncertain whether thyroxine replacement had an effect on live birth or miscarriage rates (very low-quality evidence from one study involving 70 women). In women with mildly underactive thyroids (with or without ATD), the evidence suggested that thyroxine replacement may have improved live birth rates (low-quality evidence from one study involving 64 women) and it may have led to similar miscarriage rates (low-quality evidence from one study involving 64 women). The evidence suggested that women with mildly underactive thyroid (with or without ATD) would have a 25% chance of a live birth with placebo or no treatment, and 27% to 100% with thyroxine. In women with ATD and normal thyroid function, treatment with thyroxine replacement compared with placebo or no treatment may have led to similar live birth rates (low-quality evidence from two studies involving 686 women) and miscarriage rates (low quality evidence from two studies involving 686 women). The evidence suggested that women with ATD and normal thyroid function would have a 31% chance of a live birth with placebo or no treatment, and 26% to 40% with thyroxine. Side effects were rarely reported. One study reported none out of 32 preterm births in the thyroxine replacement group and one out of 32 preterm births in the control group in women diagnosed with mildly underactive thyroid (with or without ATD). One study reported 21 out of 300 preterm births in the thyroxine replacement group and 19 out of 300 preterm births in the control group in women diagnosed with ATD and normal thyroid function. None of the studies reported on other maternal pregnancy complications, foetal complications or side effects of thyroxine. The evidence was of very low to low quality. We downgraded the evidence as it was based on single, small trials with widely variable results." } ]	*TASK* the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature *INPUT* the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature *OUTPUT* the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature *DOCUMENTATION* *EXAMPLES* Input: The review included four studies with 820 women. The included studies were of overall low risk of bias. Using GRADE methodology, we assessed the quality of evidence for the primary outcomes of this review to be very low- to low-quality evidence. Evidence was downgraded for imprecision as it was based on single, small trials with wide confidence intervals (CI). We were able to include data from three of the four included studies. In one study of women with both subclinical hypothyroidism and positive or negative anti-TPO antibodies (autoimmune disease), the evidence suggested that thyroxine replacement may have improved live birth rate (RR 2.13, 95% CI 1.07 to 4.21; 1 RCT, n = 64; low-quality evidence) and it may have led to similar miscarriage rates (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.98; 1 RCT, n = 64; low-quality evidence). The evidence suggested that women with both subclinical hypothyroidism and positive or negative anti-TPO antibodies would have a 25% chance of a live birth with placebo or no treatment, and that the chance of a live birth in these women using thyroxine would be between 27% and 100%. In women with normal thyroid function and thyroid autoimmunity (euthyroid ATD), treatment with thyroxine replacement compared with placebo or no treatment may have led to similar live birth rates (risk ratio (RR) 1.04, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.29; 2 RCTs, number of participants (n) = 686; I2 = 46%; low-quality evidence) and miscarriage rates (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.46, 2 RCTs, n = 686, I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). The evidence suggested that women with normal thyroid function and thyroid autoimmunity would have a 31% chance of a live birth with placebo or no treatment, and that the chance of a live birth in these women using thyroxine would be between 26% and 40%. Adverse events were rarely reported. One RCT reported 0/32 in the thyroxine replacement group and 1/32 preterm births in the control group in women diagnosed with subclinical hypothyroidism and positive or negative anti-TPO antibodies. One RCT reported 21/300 preterm births in the thyroxine replacement group and 19/300 preterm births in the control group in women diagnosed with positive anti-TPO antibodies. None of the RCTs reported on other maternal pregnancy complications, foetal complications or adverse effects of thyroxine. We could draw no clear conclusions in this systematic review due to the very low to low quality of the evidence reported. Output:
CochranePLS210	[ { "from": "human", "value": "*TASK\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nINPUT\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nOUTPUT\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nDOCUMENTATION\n\nEXAMPLES*\n\nInput: Four trials met the inclusion criteria, with a total of 3198 children under five years of age, and were conducted in Afghanistan, Spain, and the USA. Prevalence of vitamin D deficiency varied widely in these populations (range: 73.1% in Afghanistan, 10 to 12% in USA, and 6.2% in Spain). The included trials evaluated mortality (two trials), pneumonia incidence (two trials), diarrhoea incidence (two trials), hospitalization (two trials), and mean serum vitamin D concentrations (four trials). We do not know whether vitamin D supplementation impacts on all-cause mortality because this outcome was underpowered due to few events (risk ratio (RR) 1.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 3.74; one trial, 3046 participants, low quality evidence). For pneumonia, episodes of 'radiologically confirmed' first or only episode of pneumonia were little different in the supplemented and unsupplemented group (Rate Ratio: 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 1.26; two trials, 3134 participants, moderate quality evidence), and similarly for children with confirmed or unconfirmed pneumonia (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.04; one trial, 3046 participants). In these two trials there were no obvious differences between supplemented and unsupplemented children regarding episodes of diarrhoea. In the single large trial from Afghanistan, the trial authors reported that vitamin D supplementation was associated with an increase in repeat episodes of pneumonia confirmed by chest radiograph (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.28 to 2.21; one trial, 3046 participants), but not reflected in the outcome of confirmed or unconfirmed pneumonia (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.13; one trial, 3046 participants). For hospital admission measured in one small trial, there was no difference detected (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.20 to 3.62; one trial, 88 participants; very low quality evidence). The mean serum vitamin D concentrations were higher in supplemented compared to unsupplemented children at the end of supplementation (MD 7.72 ng/mL, 95% CI 0.50 to 14.93; four trials, 266 participants, low quality evidence). These results were driven primarily by two smaller trials with large magnitudes of effect. In the other two bigger trials, serum vitamin D concentrations were elevated in the intervention group for most of the trial duration but not at the end of supplementation. This may be due to time elapsed at measurement from the last dose, incomplete compliance, or increased need of vitamin D with infant age. We did not find any trial that reported on the incidence of TB, malaria or febrile illness, duration of pneumonia, duration of diarrhoea, severity of infection, and cause-specific mortality (due to TB, diarrhoea, or malaria). Evidence from one large trial did not demonstrate benefit of vitamin D supplementation on the incidence of pneumonia or diarrhoea in children under five years. To our knowledge, trials that evaluated supplementation for preventing other infections, including TB and malaria, have not been performed.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "The review authors examined the available evidence up to 17 June 2016, and included four trials with a total of 3198 children under five years of age. The included trials were conducted in Afghanistan, Spain and the USA. The review did not detect an effect of vitamin D supplementation on death (low quality evidence); the occurrence of the first or only episode of pneumonia; or on children with pneumonia, irrespective of whether this had been confirmed by hospital tests (moderate quality evidence). Limited evidence showed that there was no obvious difference in the first or repeat episodes of diarrhoea between supplemented and unsupplemented children. We do not know about whether Vitamin D influences hospital admissions as there was only one small study measuring this (very low quality evidence). The mean serum vitamin D concentrations were higher in the supplemented versus unsupplemented children at the end of supplementation period (low quality evidence). One large trial from Afghanistan showed an increase in repeat episodes of confirmed pneumonia but not on confirmed and unconfirmed pneumonia. None of the included trials reported on TB or malaria as outcomes. One large trial has not demonstrated an effect of vitamin D on death or respiratory infections in children under five years of age. We did not find trials evaluating Vitamin D supplementation to prevent other infections such as TB and malaria." } ]	*TASK* the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature *INPUT* the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature *OUTPUT* the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature *DOCUMENTATION* *EXAMPLES* Input: Four trials met the inclusion criteria, with a total of 3198 children under five years of age, and were conducted in Afghanistan, Spain, and the USA. Prevalence of vitamin D deficiency varied widely in these populations (range: 73.1% in Afghanistan, 10 to 12% in USA, and 6.2% in Spain). The included trials evaluated mortality (two trials), pneumonia incidence (two trials), diarrhoea incidence (two trials), hospitalization (two trials), and mean serum vitamin D concentrations (four trials). We do not know whether vitamin D supplementation impacts on all-cause mortality because this outcome was underpowered due to few events (risk ratio (RR) 1.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 3.74; one trial, 3046 participants, low quality evidence). For pneumonia, episodes of 'radiologically confirmed' first or only episode of pneumonia were little different in the supplemented and unsupplemented group (Rate Ratio: 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 1.26; two trials, 3134 participants, moderate quality evidence), and similarly for children with confirmed or unconfirmed pneumonia (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.04; one trial, 3046 participants). In these two trials there were no obvious differences between supplemented and unsupplemented children regarding episodes of diarrhoea. In the single large trial from Afghanistan, the trial authors reported that vitamin D supplementation was associated with an increase in repeat episodes of pneumonia confirmed by chest radiograph (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.28 to 2.21; one trial, 3046 participants), but not reflected in the outcome of confirmed or unconfirmed pneumonia (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.13; one trial, 3046 participants). For hospital admission measured in one small trial, there was no difference detected (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.20 to 3.62; one trial, 88 participants; very low quality evidence). The mean serum vitamin D concentrations were higher in supplemented compared to unsupplemented children at the end of supplementation (MD 7.72 ng/mL, 95% CI 0.50 to 14.93; four trials, 266 participants, low quality evidence). These results were driven primarily by two smaller trials with large magnitudes of effect. In the other two bigger trials, serum vitamin D concentrations were elevated in the intervention group for most of the trial duration but not at the end of supplementation. This may be due to time elapsed at measurement from the last dose, incomplete compliance, or increased need of vitamin D with infant age. We did not find any trial that reported on the incidence of TB, malaria or febrile illness, duration of pneumonia, duration of diarrhoea, severity of infection, and cause-specific mortality (due to TB, diarrhoea, or malaria). Evidence from one large trial did not demonstrate benefit of vitamin D supplementation on the incidence of pneumonia or diarrhoea in children under five years. To our knowledge, trials that evaluated supplementation for preventing other infections, including TB and malaria, have not been performed. Output:
CochranePLS2402	[ { "from": "human", "value": "*TASK\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nINPUT\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nOUTPUT\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nDOCUMENTATION\n\nEXAMPLES*\n\nInput: We included in this review 24 studies with a total of 1250 participants. The trials included various numbers and types of participants. Investigators used a range of methods to warm fluids to temperatures between 37°C and 41°C. We found that evidence was of moderate quality because descriptions of trial design were often unclear, resulting in high or unclear risk of bias due to inappropriate or unclear randomization and blinding procedures. These factors may have influenced results in some way. Our protocol specified the risk of hypothermia as the primary outcome; as no trials reported this, we decided to include data related to mean core temperature. The only secondary outcome reported in the trials that provided useable data was shivering. Evidence was unclear regarding the effects of fluid warming on bleeding. No data were reported on our other specified outcomes of cardiovascular complications, infection, pressure ulcers, bleeding, mortality, length of stay, unplanned intensive care admission and adverse events. Researchers found that warmed intravenous fluids kept the core temperature of study participants about half a degree warmer than that of participants given room temperature intravenous fluids at 30, 60, 90 and 120 minutes, and at the end of surgery. Warmed intravenous fluids also further reduced the risk of shivering compared with room temperature intravenous fluids Investigators reported no statistically significant differences in core body temperature or shivering between individuals given warmed and room temperature irrigation fluids. Warm intravenous fluids appear to keep patients warmer during surgery than room temperature fluids. It is unclear whether the actual differences in temperature are clinically meaningful, or if other benefits or harms are associated with the use of warmed fluids. It is also unclear if using fluid warming in addition to other warming methods confers any benefit, as a ceiling effect is likely when multiple methods of warming are used.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "We searched medical databases up until February 2014 to find studies comparing warmed fluids with unwarmed fluids and other methods of warming the patient. We found 24 relevant trials with 1250 adult patients undergoing all types of surgery. We did not include studies for which it was intended that the patient would become cold (such as to facilitate heart bypass surgery). We had intended to collect data on which patients became hypothermic (when their body temperature dropped to below 36 degrees Celsius), but no trials reported this, so we collected data on patient temperatures at various time points throughout surgery. We found evidence of moderate quality showing that if patients had the fluids they were given into their veins warmed up, they were about half a degree Celsius warmer and shivered less than those who received unwarmed fluids; however, we were unable to show a significant difference in patients who received warmed fluids to wash out parts of their bodies. We have demonstrated that warming fluids does keep adult patients warmer; however it is unclear whether this alone can make a difference in the severe complications that becoming cold may cause." } ]	*TASK* the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature *INPUT* the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature *OUTPUT* the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature *DOCUMENTATION* *EXAMPLES* Input: We included in this review 24 studies with a total of 1250 participants. The trials included various numbers and types of participants. Investigators used a range of methods to warm fluids to temperatures between 37°C and 41°C. We found that evidence was of moderate quality because descriptions of trial design were often unclear, resulting in high or unclear risk of bias due to inappropriate or unclear randomization and blinding procedures. These factors may have influenced results in some way. Our protocol specified the risk of hypothermia as the primary outcome; as no trials reported this, we decided to include data related to mean core temperature. The only secondary outcome reported in the trials that provided useable data was shivering. Evidence was unclear regarding the effects of fluid warming on bleeding. No data were reported on our other specified outcomes of cardiovascular complications, infection, pressure ulcers, bleeding, mortality, length of stay, unplanned intensive care admission and adverse events. Researchers found that warmed intravenous fluids kept the core temperature of study participants about half a degree warmer than that of participants given room temperature intravenous fluids at 30, 60, 90 and 120 minutes, and at the end of surgery. Warmed intravenous fluids also further reduced the risk of shivering compared with room temperature intravenous fluids Investigators reported no statistically significant differences in core body temperature or shivering between individuals given warmed and room temperature irrigation fluids. Warm intravenous fluids appear to keep patients warmer during surgery than room temperature fluids. It is unclear whether the actual differences in temperature are clinically meaningful, or if other benefits or harms are associated with the use of warmed fluids. It is also unclear if using fluid warming in addition to other warming methods confers any benefit, as a ceiling effect is likely when multiple methods of warming are used. Output:
CochranePLS2952	[ { "from": "human", "value": "*TASK\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nINPUT\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nOUTPUT\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nDOCUMENTATION\n\nEXAMPLES*\n\nInput: We included 12 studies randomising 310 patients, with data available for 266 patients after dropout. All but one study evaluated a fixed concentration of low dialysate [Na+], and one profiled dialysate [Na+]. Three studies were parallel group, and the remaining nine cross-over. Of the latter, only two used a washout between intervention and control periods. Most studies were short-term with a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 3 (3, 8.5) weeks. Two were of a single HD session, and two of a single week's HD. Half of the studies were conducted prior to 2000, and five reported use of obsolete HD practices. Risks of bias in the included studies were often high or unclear, lowering confidence in the results. Compared to neutral or high dialysate [Na+], low dialysate [Na+] had the following effects on \"efficacy\" endpoints: reduced interdialytic weight gain (10 studies: MD -0.35 kg, 95% CI -0.18 to -0.51; high certainty evidence); probably reduced predialysis mean arterial blood pressure (BP) (4 studies: MD -3.58 mmHg, 95% CI -5.46 to -1.69; moderate certainty evidence); probably reduced postdialysis mean arterial BP (MAP) (4 studies: MD -3.26 mmHg, 95% CI -1.70 to -4.82; moderate certainty evidence); probably reduced predialysis serum [Na+] (7 studies: MD -1.69 mM, 95% CI -2.36 to -1.02; moderate certainty evidence); may have reduced antihypertensive medication (2 studies: SMD -0.67 SD, 95% CI -1.07 to -0.28; low certainty evidence). Compared to neutral or high dialysate [Na+], low dialysate [Na+] had the following effects on \"safety\" endpoints: probably increased intradialytic hypotension events (9 studies: RR 1.56, 95% 1.17 to 2.07; moderate certainty evidence); probably increased intradialytic cramps (6 studies: RR 1.77, 95% 1.15 to 2.73; moderate certainty evidence). Compared to neutral or high dialysate [Na+], low dialysate [Na+] may make little or no difference to: intradialytic BP (2 studies: MD for systolic BP -3.99 mmHg, 95% CI -17.96 to 9.99; diastolic BP 1.33 mmHg, 95% CI -6.29 to 8.95; low certainty evidence); interdialytic BP (2 studies:, MD for systolic BP 0.17 mmHg, 95% CI -5.42 to 5.08; diastolic BP -2.00 mmHg, 95% CI -4.84 to 0.84; low certainty evidence); dietary salt intake (2 studies: MD -0.21g/d, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.06; low certainty evidence). Due to very low quality of evidence, it is uncertain whether low dialysate [Na+] changed extracellular fluid status, venous tone, arterial vascular resistance, left ventricular mass or volumes, thirst or fatigue. Studies did not examine cardiovascular or all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, or hospitalisation. It is likely that low dialysate [Na+] reduces intradialytic weight gain and BP, which are effects directionally associated with improved outcomes. However, the intervention probably also increases intradialytic hypotension and reduces serum [Na+], effects that are associated with increased mortality risk. The effect of the intervention on overall patient health and well-being is unknown. Further evidence is needed in the form of longer-term studies in contemporary settings, evaluating end-organ effects in small-scale mechanistic studies using optimal methods, and clinical outcomes in large-scale multicentre RCTs.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "We found 12 studies comparing low sodium levels in dialysis fluid with neutral or high sodium levels. Many studies were performed prior to 2000, studying technology and patients that are not always relevant today. Most were short-term studies, only lasting a few weeks. Our main findings in these studies were; that low sodium in dialysis fluid improves blood pressure and reduces gain of salt and water in between dialysis treatments, which are probably good things, but increases the number of cramps and low blood pressure events experienced by patients during dialysis, which are definitely bad things. The studies did not provide enough information about the participating patients for us to know which patients might benefit from low sodium dialysis fluid, and which patients might instead be harmed. The studies did not provide definitive information on the effect of low sodium dialysis fluids on heart structure and function, or patient quality of life and survival. We are uncertain about whether low sodium in dialysis fluid improves overall health and well-being for people on haemodialysis, since there are a mixture of probably good and bad effects, and available research studies were not designed (or designed well-enough) to learn about effects of the intervention on the heart or on overall patient health and well-being. Larger and up-to-date definitive studies are needed to evaluate the medium to long-term effects of low sodium levels in dialysis fluid, and better inform clinical practice." } ]	*TASK* the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature *INPUT* the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature *OUTPUT* the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature *DOCUMENTATION* *EXAMPLES* Input: We included 12 studies randomising 310 patients, with data available for 266 patients after dropout. All but one study evaluated a fixed concentration of low dialysate [Na+], and one profiled dialysate [Na+]. Three studies were parallel group, and the remaining nine cross-over. Of the latter, only two used a washout between intervention and control periods. Most studies were short-term with a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 3 (3, 8.5) weeks. Two were of a single HD session, and two of a single week's HD. Half of the studies were conducted prior to 2000, and five reported use of obsolete HD practices. Risks of bias in the included studies were often high or unclear, lowering confidence in the results. Compared to neutral or high dialysate [Na+], low dialysate [Na+] had the following effects on "efficacy" endpoints: reduced interdialytic weight gain (10 studies: MD -0.35 kg, 95% CI -0.18 to -0.51; high certainty evidence); probably reduced predialysis mean arterial blood pressure (BP) (4 studies: MD -3.58 mmHg, 95% CI -5.46 to -1.69; moderate certainty evidence); probably reduced postdialysis mean arterial BP (MAP) (4 studies: MD -3.26 mmHg, 95% CI -1.70 to -4.82; moderate certainty evidence); probably reduced predialysis serum [Na+] (7 studies: MD -1.69 mM, 95% CI -2.36 to -1.02; moderate certainty evidence); may have reduced antihypertensive medication (2 studies: SMD -0.67 SD, 95% CI -1.07 to -0.28; low certainty evidence). Compared to neutral or high dialysate [Na+], low dialysate [Na+] had the following effects on "safety" endpoints: probably increased intradialytic hypotension events (9 studies: RR 1.56, 95% 1.17 to 2.07; moderate certainty evidence); probably increased intradialytic cramps (6 studies: RR 1.77, 95% 1.15 to 2.73; moderate certainty evidence). Compared to neutral or high dialysate [Na+], low dialysate [Na+] may make little or no difference to: intradialytic BP (2 studies: MD for systolic BP -3.99 mmHg, 95% CI -17.96 to 9.99; diastolic BP 1.33 mmHg, 95% CI -6.29 to 8.95; low certainty evidence); interdialytic BP (2 studies:, MD for systolic BP 0.17 mmHg, 95% CI -5.42 to 5.08; diastolic BP -2.00 mmHg, 95% CI -4.84 to 0.84; low certainty evidence); dietary salt intake (2 studies: MD -0.21g/d, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.06; low certainty evidence). Due to very low quality of evidence, it is uncertain whether low dialysate [Na+] changed extracellular fluid status, venous tone, arterial vascular resistance, left ventricular mass or volumes, thirst or fatigue. Studies did not examine cardiovascular or all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, or hospitalisation. It is likely that low dialysate [Na+] reduces intradialytic weight gain and BP, which are effects directionally associated with improved outcomes. However, the intervention probably also increases intradialytic hypotension and reduces serum [Na+], effects that are associated with increased mortality risk. The effect of the intervention on overall patient health and well-being is unknown. Further evidence is needed in the form of longer-term studies in contemporary settings, evaluating end-organ effects in small-scale mechanistic studies using optimal methods, and clinical outcomes in large-scale multicentre RCTs. Output:
CochranePLS2855	[ { "from": "human", "value": "*TASK\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nINPUT\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nOUTPUT\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nDOCUMENTATION\n\nEXAMPLES*\n\nInput: Two of the seven studies analyzed showed a statistically significant reduction in seizure rate from baseline (72% and 78.9% reduction of seizures per week from the baseline rate, respectively). The other five studies showed no statistically significant difference in seizure frequency following rTMS treatment compared with controls. We were not able to combine the results of the trials in analysis due to differences in the designs of the studies. Four studies evaluated our secondary endpoint of mean number of epileptic discharges, and three of the four showed a statistically significant reduction in discharges. Quality of life was not assessed in any of the studies. Adverse effects were uncommon among the studies and typically involved headache, dizziness, and tinnitus. No significant changes in medication use were found in the trials. Overall, we judged the quality of evidence for the primary outcomes of this review to be low. There is evidence that rTMS is safe and not associated with any adverse events, but given the variability in technique and outcome reporting that prevented meta-analysis, the evidence for efficacy of rTMS for seizure reduction is still lacking despite reasonable evidence that it is effective at reducing epileptiform discharges.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "Overall, we judged the quality of the evidence in this review for the main outcome of reduction in seizure frequency to be low due to unclear information in the published papers about how the studies were designed and unclear presentation of results. This review provides no information about the effect of TMS on quality of life. It is important that future studies are larger and measure important outcomes, such as the effect of TMS on reducing seizure frequency, improving quality of life, and any side-effects associated with TMS compared with other available treatments." } ]	*TASK* the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature *INPUT* the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature *OUTPUT* the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature *DOCUMENTATION* *EXAMPLES* Input: Two of the seven studies analyzed showed a statistically significant reduction in seizure rate from baseline (72% and 78.9% reduction of seizures per week from the baseline rate, respectively). The other five studies showed no statistically significant difference in seizure frequency following rTMS treatment compared with controls. We were not able to combine the results of the trials in analysis due to differences in the designs of the studies. Four studies evaluated our secondary endpoint of mean number of epileptic discharges, and three of the four showed a statistically significant reduction in discharges. Quality of life was not assessed in any of the studies. Adverse effects were uncommon among the studies and typically involved headache, dizziness, and tinnitus. No significant changes in medication use were found in the trials. Overall, we judged the quality of evidence for the primary outcomes of this review to be low. There is evidence that rTMS is safe and not associated with any adverse events, but given the variability in technique and outcome reporting that prevented meta-analysis, the evidence for efficacy of rTMS for seizure reduction is still lacking despite reasonable evidence that it is effective at reducing epileptiform discharges. Output:
CochranePLS1315	[ { "from": "human", "value": "*TASK\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nINPUT\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nOUTPUT\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nDOCUMENTATION\n\nEXAMPLES*\n\nInput: We included four multicentre RCTs involving 1269 women with primary FIGO stage III/IV endometrial cancer. We considered the trials to be at low to moderate risk of bias. All participants received primary cytoreductive surgery. Two trials, evaluating 620 women (83% stage III, 17% stage IV), compared adjuvant chemotherapy with adjuvant radiotherapy; one trial evaluating 552 women (88% stage III, 12% stage IV) compared two chemotherapy regimens (cisplatin/doxorubicin/paclitaxel (CDP) versus cisplatin/doxorubicin (CD) treatment) in women who had all undergone adjuvant radiotherapy; and one trial contributed no data. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) was longer with adjuvant chemotherapy compared with adjuvant radiotherapy (OS: hazard ratio (HR) 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.99, I² = 22%; and PFS: HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.92, I² = 0%). Sensitivity analysis using adjusted and unadjusted OS data, gave similar results. In subgroup analyses, the effects on survival in favour of chemotherapy were not different for stage III and IV, or stage IIIA and IIIC (tests for subgroup differences were not significant and I² = 0%). This evidence was of moderate quality. Data from one trial showed that women receiving adjuvant chemotherapy were more likely to experience haematological and neurological adverse events and alopecia, and more likely to discontinue treatment (33/194 versus 6/202; RR 5.73, 95% CI 2.45 to 13.36), than those receiving adjuvant radiotherapy. There was no statistically significant difference in treatment-related deaths between the chemotherapy and radiotherapy treatment arms (8/309 versus 5/311; Risk Ratio (RR) 1.67, 95% CI 0.55 to 5.00). There was no clear difference in PFS between intervention groups in the one trial that compared CDP versus CD (552 women; HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.17). We considered this evidence to be of moderate quality. Mature OS data from this trial were not yet available. Severe haematological and neurological adverse events occurred more frequently with CDP than CD. We found no trials to include of adjuvant chemotherapy versus chemoradiation in advanced endometrial cancer; however we identified one ongoing trial of this comparison. There is moderate quality evidence that chemotherapy increases survival time after primary surgery by approximately 25% relative to radiotherapy in stage III and IV endometrial cancer. There is limited evidence that it is associated with more adverse effects. There is some uncertainty as to whether triplet regimens offer similar survival benefits over doublet regimens in the long-term. Further research is needed to determine which chemotherapy regimen(s) are the most effective and least toxic, and whether the addition of radiotherapy further improves outcomes. A large trial evaluating the benefits and risks of adjuvant chemoradiation versus chemotherapy in advanced endometrial cancer is ongoing.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "Women who received chemotherapy after surgery (starting within eight weeks of surgery) survived approximately 25% longer than those receiving radiotherapy after surgery. Assuming that 60% of women with stage III endometrial cancer usually survive at least five years after surgery and radiotherapy, this would increase to 75% if they receive surgery and chemotherapy instead, depending on other risk factors, such as age. The risk of death which might have been caused by treatment was low with both chemotherapy and radiotherapy but we could not be sure if one was more harmful than the other. Chemotherapy may be associated with more side-effects (low blood counts, nerve damage and hair loss) compared with radiotherapy. In the trial that compared two different chemotherapy treatments, there was no clear evidence that using three anti-cancer drugs was better than using two. However, the final overall survival results of this trial have not yet been reported. Severe side-effects were much more common in women treated with three anti-cancer drugs than two drugs. Chemotherapy appears to be more effective than radiotherapy after surgery for women with stage III and IV endometrial cancer but may cause more side-effects. More research is needed to determine whether the addition of radiotherapy to chemotherapy improves outcomes and which anti-cancer drugs are best." } ]	*TASK* the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature *INPUT* the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature *OUTPUT* the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature *DOCUMENTATION* *EXAMPLES* Input: We included four multicentre RCTs involving 1269 women with primary FIGO stage III/IV endometrial cancer. We considered the trials to be at low to moderate risk of bias. All participants received primary cytoreductive surgery. Two trials, evaluating 620 women (83% stage III, 17% stage IV), compared adjuvant chemotherapy with adjuvant radiotherapy; one trial evaluating 552 women (88% stage III, 12% stage IV) compared two chemotherapy regimens (cisplatin/doxorubicin/paclitaxel (CDP) versus cisplatin/doxorubicin (CD) treatment) in women who had all undergone adjuvant radiotherapy; and one trial contributed no data. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) was longer with adjuvant chemotherapy compared with adjuvant radiotherapy (OS: hazard ratio (HR) 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.99, I² = 22%; and PFS: HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.92, I² = 0%). Sensitivity analysis using adjusted and unadjusted OS data, gave similar results. In subgroup analyses, the effects on survival in favour of chemotherapy were not different for stage III and IV, or stage IIIA and IIIC (tests for subgroup differences were not significant and I² = 0%). This evidence was of moderate quality. Data from one trial showed that women receiving adjuvant chemotherapy were more likely to experience haematological and neurological adverse events and alopecia, and more likely to discontinue treatment (33/194 versus 6/202; RR 5.73, 95% CI 2.45 to 13.36), than those receiving adjuvant radiotherapy. There was no statistically significant difference in treatment-related deaths between the chemotherapy and radiotherapy treatment arms (8/309 versus 5/311; Risk Ratio (RR) 1.67, 95% CI 0.55 to 5.00). There was no clear difference in PFS between intervention groups in the one trial that compared CDP versus CD (552 women; HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.17). We considered this evidence to be of moderate quality. Mature OS data from this trial were not yet available. Severe haematological and neurological adverse events occurred more frequently with CDP than CD. We found no trials to include of adjuvant chemotherapy versus chemoradiation in advanced endometrial cancer; however we identified one ongoing trial of this comparison. There is moderate quality evidence that chemotherapy increases survival time after primary surgery by approximately 25% relative to radiotherapy in stage III and IV endometrial cancer. There is limited evidence that it is associated with more adverse effects. There is some uncertainty as to whether triplet regimens offer similar survival benefits over doublet regimens in the long-term. Further research is needed to determine which chemotherapy regimen(s) are the most effective and least toxic, and whether the addition of radiotherapy further improves outcomes. A large trial evaluating the benefits and risks of adjuvant chemoradiation versus chemotherapy in advanced endometrial cancer is ongoing. Output:
CochranePLS2714	[ { "from": "human", "value": "*TASK\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nINPUT\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nOUTPUT\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nDOCUMENTATION\n\nEXAMPLES*\n\nInput: Twenty-four studies containing information about five index tests (rK39 immunochromatographic test (ICT), KAtex latex agglutination test in urine, FAST agglutination test, rK26 ICT, and rKE16 ICT) recruiting 4271 participants (2605 with VL) were included. We carried out a meta-analysis for the rK39 ICT (including 18 studies; 3622 participants) and the latex agglutination test (six studies; 1374 participants). The results showed considerable heterogeneity. For the rK39 ICT, the overall sensitivity was 91.9% (95% confidence interval (95% CI) 84.8 to 96.5) and the specificity 92.4% (95% CI 85.6 to 96.8). The sensitivity was lower in East Africa (85.3%; 95% CI 74.5 to 93.2) than in the Indian subcontinent (97.0%; 95% CI 90.0 to 99.5). For the latex agglutination test, overall sensitivity was 63.6% (95% CI 40.9 to 85.6) and specificity 92.9% (95% CI 76.7 to 99.2). The rK39 ICT shows high sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of visceral leishmaniasis in patients with febrile splenomegaly and no previous history of the disease, but the sensitivity is notably lower in east Africa than in the Indian subcontinent. Other rapid tests lack accuracy, validation, or both.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "We found 24 studies, which contained information about five different rapid tests. A total of 4271 people participated in these studies. One of the rapid tests (called the rK39 immunochromatographic test) gave correct, positive results in 92% of the people with visceral leishmaniasis and it gave correct, negative results in 92% of the people who did not have the disease. This test worked better in India and Nepal than in east Africa. In India and Nepal, it gave correct, positive results in 97% of the people with the disease. In east Africa, it gave correct, positive results in only 85% of the people with the disease. A second rapid test (called latex agglutination test) gave correct, positive results in 64% of the people with the disease and it gave correct, negative results in 93% of the people without the disease. For the other rapid tests evaluated, there are too few studies to know how accurate they are." } ]	*TASK* the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature *INPUT* the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature *OUTPUT* the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature *DOCUMENTATION* *EXAMPLES* Input: Twenty-four studies containing information about five index tests (rK39 immunochromatographic test (ICT), KAtex latex agglutination test in urine, FAST agglutination test, rK26 ICT, and rKE16 ICT) recruiting 4271 participants (2605 with VL) were included. We carried out a meta-analysis for the rK39 ICT (including 18 studies; 3622 participants) and the latex agglutination test (six studies; 1374 participants). The results showed considerable heterogeneity. For the rK39 ICT, the overall sensitivity was 91.9% (95% confidence interval (95% CI) 84.8 to 96.5) and the specificity 92.4% (95% CI 85.6 to 96.8). The sensitivity was lower in East Africa (85.3%; 95% CI 74.5 to 93.2) than in the Indian subcontinent (97.0%; 95% CI 90.0 to 99.5). For the latex agglutination test, overall sensitivity was 63.6% (95% CI 40.9 to 85.6) and specificity 92.9% (95% CI 76.7 to 99.2). The rK39 ICT shows high sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of visceral leishmaniasis in patients with febrile splenomegaly and no previous history of the disease, but the sensitivity is notably lower in east Africa than in the Indian subcontinent. Other rapid tests lack accuracy, validation, or both. Output:
CochranePLS609	[ { "from": "human", "value": "*TASK\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nINPUT\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nOUTPUT\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nDOCUMENTATION\n\nEXAMPLES*\n\nInput: We added six studies to this update. Overall, we included 23 studies (2669 participants). For the majority of outcomes (two-thirds), we could not perform a meta-analysis since outcomes were not measured, or data were provided by one trial only. No study reported data on the number of participants with pain intensity reduction of at least 50% from baseline. Only one study reported data on the number of participants below 30/100 mm on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) in pain intensity (very low-quality evidence). Psychological interventions did not reduce pain intensity in the short-term interval (g 0.39, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.96, 2 studies, 104 participants, low-quality evidence), medium-term interval (g -0.02, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.20, 4 studies, 413 participants, moderate-quality evidence) or in the long-term interval (g 0.05, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.30, 2 studies, 200 participants, moderate-quality evidence). No study reported data on median time to re-medication or on number of participants re-medicated. Only two studies provided data on postoperative analgesic use in the short-term interval, showing that psychological interventions did not reduce the use of analgesic medication (g 1.18, 95% CI -2.03 to 4.39, 2 studies, 104 participants, low-quality evidence). Studies revealed that psychological interventions reduced mental distress in the medium-term (g 0.37, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.60, 13 studies, 1388 participants, moderate-quality evidence) and likewise in the long-term interval (g 0.32, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.53, 14 studies, 1586 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Psychological interventions did not improve mobility in the medium-term interval (g 0.23, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.67, 3 studies, 444 participants, low-quality evidence), nor in the long-term interval (g 0.09, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.28, 4 studies, 458 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Only two studies reported data on time to extubation, indicating that psychological interventions reduced the time to extubation (g 0.56, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.03, 2 studies, 154 participants, low-quality evidence). Overall, the very low to moderate quality of the body of evidence on the efficacy of psychological interventions for acute pain after open heart surgery cannot be regarded as sufficient to draw robust conclusions. Most 'Risk of bias' assessments were low or unclear. We judged selection bias (random sequence generation) and attrition bias to be mostly low risk for included studies. However, we judged the risk of selection bias (allocation concealment), performance bias, detection bias and reporting bias to be mostly unclear. In line with the conclusions of our previous review, there is a lack of evidence to support or refute psychological interventions in order to reduce postoperative pain in participants undergoing open heart surgery. We found moderate-quality evidence that psychological interventions reduced mental distress in participants undergoing open heart surgery. Given the small numbers of studies, it is not possible to draw robust conclusions on the efficacy of psychological interventions on outcomes such as analgesic use, mobility, and time to extubation respectively on adverse events or harms of psychological interventions.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "We found 23 studies, including a total of 2669 participants, which reported effects of psychological treatment compared to a control group without psychological treatment on pain intensity, use of pain medication, mental distress, mobility, or time to extubation after surgery. We rated the quality of the evidence from studies using four levels: very low, low, moderate, or high. Very low-quality evidence means that we are very uncertain about the results. High-quality evidence means that we are very confident in the results. We do not know if psychological treatment reduces pain intensity, enhances mobility, or decreases intubation time after open heart surgery. This is because there were not enough data to answer some parts of our review question, because there were problems with the design of some studies, or because results were conflicting. We only found very low to moderate-quality evidence for these outcomes. We found moderate-quality evidence that psychological treatment could reduce mental distress. This means that we are moderately certain about the results because there were psychological treatments that clearly reduced distress whereas others did not. The evidence in our review is current to February 2017." } ]	*TASK* the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature *INPUT* the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature *OUTPUT* the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature *DOCUMENTATION* *EXAMPLES* Input: We added six studies to this update. Overall, we included 23 studies (2669 participants). For the majority of outcomes (two-thirds), we could not perform a meta-analysis since outcomes were not measured, or data were provided by one trial only. No study reported data on the number of participants with pain intensity reduction of at least 50% from baseline. Only one study reported data on the number of participants below 30/100 mm on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) in pain intensity (very low-quality evidence). Psychological interventions did not reduce pain intensity in the short-term interval (g 0.39, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.96, 2 studies, 104 participants, low-quality evidence), medium-term interval (g -0.02, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.20, 4 studies, 413 participants, moderate-quality evidence) or in the long-term interval (g 0.05, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.30, 2 studies, 200 participants, moderate-quality evidence). No study reported data on median time to re-medication or on number of participants re-medicated. Only two studies provided data on postoperative analgesic use in the short-term interval, showing that psychological interventions did not reduce the use of analgesic medication (g 1.18, 95% CI -2.03 to 4.39, 2 studies, 104 participants, low-quality evidence). Studies revealed that psychological interventions reduced mental distress in the medium-term (g 0.37, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.60, 13 studies, 1388 participants, moderate-quality evidence) and likewise in the long-term interval (g 0.32, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.53, 14 studies, 1586 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Psychological interventions did not improve mobility in the medium-term interval (g 0.23, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.67, 3 studies, 444 participants, low-quality evidence), nor in the long-term interval (g 0.09, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.28, 4 studies, 458 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Only two studies reported data on time to extubation, indicating that psychological interventions reduced the time to extubation (g 0.56, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.03, 2 studies, 154 participants, low-quality evidence). Overall, the very low to moderate quality of the body of evidence on the efficacy of psychological interventions for acute pain after open heart surgery cannot be regarded as sufficient to draw robust conclusions. Most 'Risk of bias' assessments were low or unclear. We judged selection bias (random sequence generation) and attrition bias to be mostly low risk for included studies. However, we judged the risk of selection bias (allocation concealment), performance bias, detection bias and reporting bias to be mostly unclear. In line with the conclusions of our previous review, there is a lack of evidence to support or refute psychological interventions in order to reduce postoperative pain in participants undergoing open heart surgery. We found moderate-quality evidence that psychological interventions reduced mental distress in participants undergoing open heart surgery. Given the small numbers of studies, it is not possible to draw robust conclusions on the efficacy of psychological interventions on outcomes such as analgesic use, mobility, and time to extubation respectively on adverse events or harms of psychological interventions. Output:
CochranePLS2379	[ { "from": "human", "value": "*TASK\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nINPUT\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nOUTPUT\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nDOCUMENTATION\n\nEXAMPLES*\n\nInput: We included 38 trials involving 2728 participants. Results are based on individual studies or limited pooled analyses. There was good evidence in: Leishmania braziliensis and L. panamensis infections: Intramuscular (IM) meglumine antimoniate (MA) was better than oral allopurinol for 28 days (1RCT n=127, RR 0.39; 95% CI 0.26, 0.58). Intravenous (IV)MA for 20-days was better than 3-day and 7-day IVMA plus 15% paromomycin plus 12% methylbenzethonium chloride (PR-MBCL) or 7-day IVMA (1RCT n= 150, RR 0.24; 95% CI 0.11, 0.50; RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.53, 0.90; RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.44, 0.92 respectively). Oral allopurinol plus antimonials was better than IV antimonials (2RCT n= 168, RR 1.90; 95% CI 1.40, 2.59; I2=0%). L. braziliensis infections: Oral pentoxifylline plus IV sodium stibogluconate (SSG) was better than IVSSG (1RCT n= 23, RR 1.66; 95% CI 1.03, 2.69); IVMA was better than IM aminosidine sulphate (1RCT n= 38, RR 0.05; 95% CI 0.00, 0.78) and better than IV pentamidine isethionate (1RCT n= 80, RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.29, 0.71). Intramuscular MA was better than Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (1RCT n= 93, RR 0.46; 95% CI 0.32, 0.65). L .panamensis infections: Oral allopurinol was better than IVMA (1RCT n= 58, RR 2.20; 95% CI 1.34, 3.60). Aminosidine sulphate at doses of 12mg/kg/day and 18mg/kg/day for 14 days were better than aminosidine sulphate 12mg/kg/day for 7 days (1RCT n= 60, RR 0.23; 95% CI 0.07, 0.73; RR 0.23; 95% CI 0.07, 0.73 respectively). Oral ketoconazole for 28 days, oral miltefosine and topical PR-MBCL were better than placebo. Most trials have been designed and reported so poorly that they are inconclusive. There is a need for large well conducted studies that evaluate long-term effects of current therapies to improve quality and standardization of methods.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "There was reasonable randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence in L. braziliensis infections that oral pentoxifylline plus IVSSG was better than IVSSG alone; IVMA was better than IM aminosidine sulphate and IV pentamidine isethionate; and IMMA was better than the Bacillus Calmette-Guérin vaccine. Regarding L. panamensis infections, oral ketoconazole for 28 days and oral miltefosine and topical PR-MBCL were all better than placebo; oral allopurinol better than IVMA, aminosidine sulphate 12mg/kg/day and 18mg/kg/day for 14 days were better than aminosidine sulphate 12mg/kg/day for 7 days. There was complete absence of RCT evidence on alternative treatments, surgery, oral itraconazole and fluconazole, oral antibiotics like rifampicin, metronidazole and cotrimoxazole, intravenous or topical amphotericin B, oral dapsone, photodynamic therapy, promoting healing therapies, laser, and cryotherapy treatments. Moreover, none of the studies reported quality of life, \"microbiological or histopathological cure of skin lesions\", changes in ability to detect the parasite by diagnostic methods (e.g. smear or culture) or mortality. No general consensus on optimal treatment has been achieved but alternatives to intramuscular or intravenous treatments are under active investigation. The evidence base for the treatment of American cutaneous and mucocutaneous leishmaniasis has many limitations due to poor design and reporting of clinical trials. Because resources are limited for clinical research into neglected diseases, there is a need for prioritising properly designed clinical trials. Therefore, we suggest the creation of an international strategy to improve the quality and standardization of future trials for a better evidence-based strategic approach in the future." } ]	*TASK* the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature *INPUT* the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature *OUTPUT* the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature *DOCUMENTATION* *EXAMPLES* Input: We included 38 trials involving 2728 participants. Results are based on individual studies or limited pooled analyses. There was good evidence in: Leishmania braziliensis and L. panamensis infections: Intramuscular (IM) meglumine antimoniate (MA) was better than oral allopurinol for 28 days (1RCT n=127, RR 0.39; 95% CI 0.26, 0.58). Intravenous (IV)MA for 20-days was better than 3-day and 7-day IVMA plus 15% paromomycin plus 12% methylbenzethonium chloride (PR-MBCL) or 7-day IVMA (1RCT n= 150, RR 0.24; 95% CI 0.11, 0.50; RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.53, 0.90; RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.44, 0.92 respectively). Oral allopurinol plus antimonials was better than IV antimonials (2RCT n= 168, RR 1.90; 95% CI 1.40, 2.59; I2=0%). L. braziliensis infections: Oral pentoxifylline plus IV sodium stibogluconate (SSG) was better than IVSSG (1RCT n= 23, RR 1.66; 95% CI 1.03, 2.69); IVMA was better than IM aminosidine sulphate (1RCT n= 38, RR 0.05; 95% CI 0.00, 0.78) and better than IV pentamidine isethionate (1RCT n= 80, RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.29, 0.71). Intramuscular MA was better than Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (1RCT n= 93, RR 0.46; 95% CI 0.32, 0.65). L .panamensis infections: Oral allopurinol was better than IVMA (1RCT n= 58, RR 2.20; 95% CI 1.34, 3.60). Aminosidine sulphate at doses of 12mg/kg/day and 18mg/kg/day for 14 days were better than aminosidine sulphate 12mg/kg/day for 7 days (1RCT n= 60, RR 0.23; 95% CI 0.07, 0.73; RR 0.23; 95% CI 0.07, 0.73 respectively). Oral ketoconazole for 28 days, oral miltefosine and topical PR-MBCL were better than placebo. Most trials have been designed and reported so poorly that they are inconclusive. There is a need for large well conducted studies that evaluate long-term effects of current therapies to improve quality and standardization of methods. Output:
CochranePLS1141	[ { "from": "human", "value": "*TASK\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nINPUT\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nOUTPUT\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nDOCUMENTATION\n\nEXAMPLES*\n\nInput: We included nine trials about CME, of which six trials with 333 patient-caregiver couples were included in the meta-analysis. The small number of studies, participants, and a variety of outcome measures rendered summarising and combining of data in meta-analysis difficult. In addition, in some studies, CME was the only intervention (CME-core), whereas in other studies, caregivers provided another, existing intervention, such as constraint-induced movement therapy. For trials in the latter category, it was difficult to separate the effects of CME from the effects of the other intervention. We found no significant effect of CME on basic ADL when pooling all trial data post intervention (4 studies; standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.02 to 0.44; P = 0.07; moderate-quality evidence) or at follow-up (2 studies; mean difference (MD) 2.69, 95% CI -8.18 to 13.55; P = 0.63; low-quality evidence). In addition, we found no significant effects of CME on extended ADL at post intervention (two studies; SMD 0.07, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.35; P = 0.64; low-quality evidence) or at follow-up (2 studies; SMD 0.11, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.39; P = 0.45; low-quality evidence). Caregiver burden did not increase at the end of the intervention (2 studies; SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.45 to 0.37; P = 0.86; moderate-quality evidence) or at follow-up (1 study; MD 0.60, 95% CI -0.71 to 1.91; P = 0.37; very low-quality evidence). At the end of intervention, CME significantly improved the secondary outcomes of standing balance (3 studies; SMD 0.53, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.87; P = 0.002; low-quality evidence) and quality of life (1 study; physical functioning: MD 12.40, 95% CI 1.67 to 23.13; P = 0.02; mobility: MD 18.20, 95% CI 7.54 to 28.86; P = 0.0008; general recovery: MD 15.10, 95% CI 8.44 to 21.76; P < 0.00001; very low-quality evidence). At follow-up, we found a significant effect in favour of CME for Six-Minute Walking Test distance (1 study; MD 109.50 m, 95% CI 17.12 to 201.88; P = 0.02; very low-quality evidence). We also found a significant effect in favour of the control group at the end of intervention, regarding performance time on the Wolf Motor Function test (2 studies; MD -1.72, 95% CI -2.23 to -1.21; P < 0.00001; low-quality evidence). We found no significant effects for the other secondary outcomes (i.e. patient: motor impairment, upper limb function, mood, fatigue, length of stay and adverse events; caregiver: mood and quality of life). In contrast to the primary analysis, sensitivity analysis of CME-core showed a significant effect of CME on basic ADL post intervention (2 studies; MD 9.45, 95% CI 2.11 to 16.78; P = 0.01; moderate-quality evidence). The methodological quality of the included trials and variability in interventions (e.g. content, timing, and duration), affected the validity and generalisability of these observed results. There is very low- to moderate-quality evidence that CME may be a valuable intervention to augment the pallet of therapeutic options for stroke rehabilitation. Included studies were small, heterogeneous, and some trials had an unclear or high risk of bias. Future high-quality research should determine whether CME interventions are (cost-)effective.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "We identified nine clinical trials to October 2015, which all investigated some form of caregiver-mediated exercises compared with usual care, no treatment (intervention), or another intervention that was not caregiver-mediated. We included 333 patient-caregiver couples in the review. We found trials in which caregiver-mediated exercises themselves were the studied subject (called CME-core). In addition, we found trials in which the caregiver was the provider of another, already existing intervention. In the latter category, it was difficult to separate the effect of caregiver-mediated exercises from the effect of the other intervention. We found evidence that caregiver-mediated exercises could have a positive effect on patients' standing balance (low-quality evidence) and quality of life (very low-quality evidence) directly after the intervention. In the long term, we found very low-quality evidence for a positive effect on walking distance. For speed of use of the arm and hand, we found low-quality evidence in favour of the control group. We found no significant side effects or beneficial effects on caregiver strain; we judged the quality of this evidence as moderate (after intervention) to very low (long term). Furthermore, we found no significant effects for basic activities of daily living, such as dressing and bathing, after intervention (moderate-quality evidence) or follow-up (low-quality evidence). In addition, we found no significant effects for extended activities of daily living, such as cooking and gardening, after intervention or at follow-up (both low-quality evidence). In the CME-core analysis, we found moderate-quality evidence for a positive effect of caregiver-mediated exercises for basic activities of daily living. It can be concluded that caregiver-mediated exercises may be a promising form of therapy to add to usual care. The number of included trials was small and the level of evidence was of very low to moderate quality. Therefore, results should be interpreted with caution." } ]	*TASK* the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature *INPUT* the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature *OUTPUT* the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature *DOCUMENTATION* *EXAMPLES* Input: We included nine trials about CME, of which six trials with 333 patient-caregiver couples were included in the meta-analysis. The small number of studies, participants, and a variety of outcome measures rendered summarising and combining of data in meta-analysis difficult. In addition, in some studies, CME was the only intervention (CME-core), whereas in other studies, caregivers provided another, existing intervention, such as constraint-induced movement therapy. For trials in the latter category, it was difficult to separate the effects of CME from the effects of the other intervention. We found no significant effect of CME on basic ADL when pooling all trial data post intervention (4 studies; standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.02 to 0.44; P = 0.07; moderate-quality evidence) or at follow-up (2 studies; mean difference (MD) 2.69, 95% CI -8.18 to 13.55; P = 0.63; low-quality evidence). In addition, we found no significant effects of CME on extended ADL at post intervention (two studies; SMD 0.07, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.35; P = 0.64; low-quality evidence) or at follow-up (2 studies; SMD 0.11, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.39; P = 0.45; low-quality evidence). Caregiver burden did not increase at the end of the intervention (2 studies; SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.45 to 0.37; P = 0.86; moderate-quality evidence) or at follow-up (1 study; MD 0.60, 95% CI -0.71 to 1.91; P = 0.37; very low-quality evidence). At the end of intervention, CME significantly improved the secondary outcomes of standing balance (3 studies; SMD 0.53, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.87; P = 0.002; low-quality evidence) and quality of life (1 study; physical functioning: MD 12.40, 95% CI 1.67 to 23.13; P = 0.02; mobility: MD 18.20, 95% CI 7.54 to 28.86; P = 0.0008; general recovery: MD 15.10, 95% CI 8.44 to 21.76; P < 0.00001; very low-quality evidence). At follow-up, we found a significant effect in favour of CME for Six-Minute Walking Test distance (1 study; MD 109.50 m, 95% CI 17.12 to 201.88; P = 0.02; very low-quality evidence). We also found a significant effect in favour of the control group at the end of intervention, regarding performance time on the Wolf Motor Function test (2 studies; MD -1.72, 95% CI -2.23 to -1.21; P < 0.00001; low-quality evidence). We found no significant effects for the other secondary outcomes (i.e. patient: motor impairment, upper limb function, mood, fatigue, length of stay and adverse events; caregiver: mood and quality of life). In contrast to the primary analysis, sensitivity analysis of CME-core showed a significant effect of CME on basic ADL post intervention (2 studies; MD 9.45, 95% CI 2.11 to 16.78; P = 0.01; moderate-quality evidence). The methodological quality of the included trials and variability in interventions (e.g. content, timing, and duration), affected the validity and generalisability of these observed results. There is very low- to moderate-quality evidence that CME may be a valuable intervention to augment the pallet of therapeutic options for stroke rehabilitation. Included studies were small, heterogeneous, and some trials had an unclear or high risk of bias. Future high-quality research should determine whether CME interventions are (cost-)effective. Output:
CochranePLS2180	[ { "from": "human", "value": "*TASK\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nINPUT\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nOUTPUT\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nDOCUMENTATION\n\nEXAMPLES*\n\nInput: Thirteen studies (254 individuals) met our inclusion criteria. These included 75 individuals with type 1 diabetes and 158 individuals with type 2 diabetes. The median reduction in urinary sodium was 203 mmol/24 h (11.9 g/day) in type 1 diabetes and 125 mmol/24 h (7.3 g/day) in type 2 diabetes. The median duration of salt restriction was one week in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. BP was reduced in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. In type 1 diabetes (56 individuals), salt restriction reduced BP by -7.11/-3.13 mm Hg (systolic/diastolic); 95% CI: systolic BP (SBP) -9.13 to -5.10; diastolic BP (DBP) -4.28 to -1.98). In type 2 diabetes (56 individuals), salt restriction reduced BP by -6.90/-2.87 mm Hg (95% CI: SBP -9.84 to -3.95; DBP -4.39 to -1.35). There was a greater reduction in BP in normotensive patients, possibly due to a larger decrease in salt intake in this group. Although the studies are not extensive, this meta-analysis shows a large fall in BP with salt restriction, similar to that of single drug therapy. All diabetics should consider reducing salt intake at least to less than 5-6 g/day in keeping with current recommendations for the general population and may consider lowering salt intake to lower levels, although further studies are needed.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "This review found 13 studies including 254 patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Reducing salt intake by 8.5 g/day lowered BP by 7/3 mm Hg. Public health guidelines recommend reducing dietary salt intake to less than 5-6 g/day and people with diabetes would benefit from reducing salt in their diet to at least this level." } ]	*TASK* the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature *INPUT* the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature *OUTPUT* the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature *DOCUMENTATION* *EXAMPLES* Input: Thirteen studies (254 individuals) met our inclusion criteria. These included 75 individuals with type 1 diabetes and 158 individuals with type 2 diabetes. The median reduction in urinary sodium was 203 mmol/24 h (11.9 g/day) in type 1 diabetes and 125 mmol/24 h (7.3 g/day) in type 2 diabetes. The median duration of salt restriction was one week in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. BP was reduced in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. In type 1 diabetes (56 individuals), salt restriction reduced BP by -7.11/-3.13 mm Hg (systolic/diastolic); 95% CI: systolic BP (SBP) -9.13 to -5.10; diastolic BP (DBP) -4.28 to -1.98). In type 2 diabetes (56 individuals), salt restriction reduced BP by -6.90/-2.87 mm Hg (95% CI: SBP -9.84 to -3.95; DBP -4.39 to -1.35). There was a greater reduction in BP in normotensive patients, possibly due to a larger decrease in salt intake in this group. Although the studies are not extensive, this meta-analysis shows a large fall in BP with salt restriction, similar to that of single drug therapy. All diabetics should consider reducing salt intake at least to less than 5-6 g/day in keeping with current recommendations for the general population and may consider lowering salt intake to lower levels, although further studies are needed. Output:
CochranePLS608	[ { "from": "human", "value": "*TASK\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nINPUT\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nOUTPUT\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nDOCUMENTATION\n\nEXAMPLES*\n\nInput: Six randomised clinical trials with 581 participants with chronic hepatitis C were included. All trials had high risk of bias. The included trials compared amantadine versus other antiviral drugs: ribavirin, mycophenolate mofetil, interferon-alpha, or interferon-gamma. Standard antiviral therapy (interferon-alpha, interferon-alpha plus ribavirin, or peg interferon alpha) was administered equally to the intervention and the control groups in five trials, depending on when the trial was conducted. Four trials compared amantadine versus ribavirin. There were no deaths or liver-related morbidity in the two intervention groups (0/216 (0%) versus 0/211 (0%); 4 trials; very low quality of the evidence). The lower estimated risk for (serious) adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation with amantadine was imprecise (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.16; based on 10/216 (5%) versus 18/211 (9%) participants in 4 trials; very low quality of the evidence). There were more participants with failure of sustained virological response in the amantadine group than in the ribavirin group (206/216 (96%) versus 176/211 (84%); RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.22, 4 trials; low quality of the evidence). Amantadine versus ribavirin more often failed to achieve end-of follow-up biochemical response (41/46 (89%) versus 31/46 (67%); RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.63; 2 trials; very low quality of the evidence). One trial compared amantadine versus mycophenolate mofetil. There were no significant differences between the two treatment groups, except that amantadine was inferior to mycophenolate mofetil regarding the outcome failure to achieve end-of treatment virological response (low quality of evidence). One trial each compared amantadine versus interferon-alpha or interferon-gamma. Both comparisons showed no significant differences in the treatment outcomes (very low quality of the evidence). The observed effects could be due to real effects, systematic errors (bias), or random errors (play of chance). This possible influence on the observed effect by play of chance is due to the fact that trial sequential analyses could not confirm our findings. We were not able to perform meta-analyses on failure of histological improvement and quality of life due to lack of valid data in all trial comparisons. This systematic review has identified evidence of very low quality for the key outcomes of all-cause mortality or liver-related morbidity and adverse events in people with chronic hepatitis C when treated with amantadine compared with ribavirin, mycophenolate, interferon-alpha, or interferon-gamma. The timeframe for measuring the composite outcome was insufficient in the included trials. There was low quality evidence that amantadine led to more participants who failed to achieve sustained virological response compared with ribavirin. This observation may be real or caused by systematic errors (bias), but it does not seem to be caused by random error (play of chance). Due to the low quality of the evidence, we are unable to determine definitively whether amantadine is less effective than other antivirals in patients with chronic hepatitis C. As it appears less likely that future trials assessing amantadine or potentially other aminoadamantanes for patients with chronic hepatitis C would show strong benefits, it is probably better to focus on the assessments of other direct acting antiviral drugs. We found no evidence assessing other aminoadamantanes in randomised clinical trials in order to recommend or refute their use.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "Only amantadine has been tested in randomised clinical trials including participants with chronic hepatitis C. The main goal of these trials was to investigate whether amantadine as a single therapy or amantadine in combination with other antiviral therapies, compared with placebo or no intervention (with or without antiviral therapy), could increase the proportion of patients with virus eradication from the blood. This review evaluates whether amantadine versus other antiviral drugs has any beneficial or harmful effect in patients with chronic hepatitis C. The trials compared amantadine with ribavirin, mycophenolate mofetil, interferon-alpha, or interferon-gamma. The primary outcomes were the composite of all-cause mortality or liver-related morbidity and adverse events. This review includes six randomised clinical trials with a total of 581 patients. All the included trials were with high risk of bias. This review did not demonstrate any benefits or harms of amantadine on all-cause mortality or liver-related morbidity and on adverse events, but data were sparse. Compared with ribavirin, amantadine seemed to lead to more participants who fail to achieve sustained virological response (that is, undetectable hepatitis C virus RNA in serum by sensitivity testing six months after the end of treatment). This may be real or due to bias (systematic errors), but it does not seem to be due to play of chance (random errors), as trial sequential analysis confirmed the result. Compared with mycophenolate mofetil, amantadine seemed less effective in achieving end-of-treatment virological response. Compared with interferon-alpha or interferon-gamma, amantadine did not seem to offer benefits. Accordingly, the evidence from this review does not support the routine clinical use of amantadine. Therefore, it is probably better to examine the effects of other direct acting antivirals in the hepatitis C field than to conduct more randomised clinical trials on amantadine. We found no randomised clinical trials assessing other aminoadamantanes, for example rimantadine." } ]	*TASK* the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature *INPUT* the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature *OUTPUT* the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature *DOCUMENTATION* *EXAMPLES* Input: Six randomised clinical trials with 581 participants with chronic hepatitis C were included. All trials had high risk of bias. The included trials compared amantadine versus other antiviral drugs: ribavirin, mycophenolate mofetil, interferon-alpha, or interferon-gamma. Standard antiviral therapy (interferon-alpha, interferon-alpha plus ribavirin, or peg interferon alpha) was administered equally to the intervention and the control groups in five trials, depending on when the trial was conducted. Four trials compared amantadine versus ribavirin. There were no deaths or liver-related morbidity in the two intervention groups (0/216 (0%) versus 0/211 (0%); 4 trials; very low quality of the evidence). The lower estimated risk for (serious) adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation with amantadine was imprecise (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.16; based on 10/216 (5%) versus 18/211 (9%) participants in 4 trials; very low quality of the evidence). There were more participants with failure of sustained virological response in the amantadine group than in the ribavirin group (206/216 (96%) versus 176/211 (84%); RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.22, 4 trials; low quality of the evidence). Amantadine versus ribavirin more often failed to achieve end-of follow-up biochemical response (41/46 (89%) versus 31/46 (67%); RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.63; 2 trials; very low quality of the evidence). One trial compared amantadine versus mycophenolate mofetil. There were no significant differences between the two treatment groups, except that amantadine was inferior to mycophenolate mofetil regarding the outcome failure to achieve end-of treatment virological response (low quality of evidence). One trial each compared amantadine versus interferon-alpha or interferon-gamma. Both comparisons showed no significant differences in the treatment outcomes (very low quality of the evidence). The observed effects could be due to real effects, systematic errors (bias), or random errors (play of chance). This possible influence on the observed effect by play of chance is due to the fact that trial sequential analyses could not confirm our findings. We were not able to perform meta-analyses on failure of histological improvement and quality of life due to lack of valid data in all trial comparisons. This systematic review has identified evidence of very low quality for the key outcomes of all-cause mortality or liver-related morbidity and adverse events in people with chronic hepatitis C when treated with amantadine compared with ribavirin, mycophenolate, interferon-alpha, or interferon-gamma. The timeframe for measuring the composite outcome was insufficient in the included trials. There was low quality evidence that amantadine led to more participants who failed to achieve sustained virological response compared with ribavirin. This observation may be real or caused by systematic errors (bias), but it does not seem to be caused by random error (play of chance). Due to the low quality of the evidence, we are unable to determine definitively whether amantadine is less effective than other antivirals in patients with chronic hepatitis C. As it appears less likely that future trials assessing amantadine or potentially other aminoadamantanes for patients with chronic hepatitis C would show strong benefits, it is probably better to focus on the assessments of other direct acting antiviral drugs. We found no evidence assessing other aminoadamantanes in randomised clinical trials in order to recommend or refute their use. Output:
CochranePLS251	[ { "from": "human", "value": "*TASK\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nINPUT\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nOUTPUT\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nDOCUMENTATION\n\nEXAMPLES*\n\nInput: Our searches identified over 1700 records, from which we include 24 completed studies (three RCTs, two of which were eligible for our cessation meta-analysis, and 21 cohort studies). Eleven of these studies are new for this version of the review. We identified 27 ongoing studies. Two RCTs compared EC with placebo (non-nicotine) EC, with a combined sample size of 662 participants. One trial included minimal telephone support and one recruited smokers not intending to quit, and both used early EC models with low nicotine content and poor battery life. We judged the RCTs to be at low risk of bias, but under the GRADE system we rated the overall quality of the evidence for our outcomes as ‘low’ or ‘very low’, because of imprecision due to the small number of trials. A ‘low’ grade means that further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. A ‘very low’ grade means we are very uncertain about the estimate. Participants using an EC were more likely to have abstained from smoking for at least six months compared with participants using placebo EC (RR 2.29, 95% CI 1.05 to 4.96; placebo 4% versus EC 9%; 2 studies; 662 participants. GRADE: low). The one study that compared EC to nicotine patch found no significant difference in six-month abstinence rates, but the confidence intervals do not rule out a clinically important difference (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.34; 584 participants. GRADE: very low). Of the included studies, none reported serious adverse events considered related to EC use. The most frequently reported AEs were mouth and throat irritation, most commonly dissipating over time. One RCT provided data on the proportion of participants experiencing any adverse events. The proportion of participants in the study arms experiencing adverse events was similar (ECs vs placebo EC: RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.34 (298 participants); ECs vs patch: RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.22 (456 participants)). The second RCT reported no statistically significant difference in the frequency of AEs at three- or 12-month follow-up between the EC and placebo EC groups, and showed that in all groups the frequency of AEs (with the exception of throat irritation) decreased significantly over time. There is evidence from two trials that ECs help smokers to stop smoking in the long term compared with placebo ECs. However, the small number of trials, low event rates and wide confidence intervals around the estimates mean that our confidence in the result is rated 'low' by GRADE standards. The lack of difference between the effect of ECs compared with nicotine patches found in one trial is uncertain for similar reasons. None of the included studies (short- to mid-term, up to two years) detected serious adverse events considered possibly related to EC use. The most commonly reported adverse effects were irritation of the mouth and throat. The long-term safety of ECs is unknown. In this update, we found a further 15 ongoing RCTs which appear eligible for this review.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "This is an update of a previous review. The first review was published in 2014 and included 13 studies. For this update, we searched for studies published up to January 2016 and found 11 new studies. Only two of the included studies are randomized controlled trials and followed participants for at least six months. These provide the best evidence. The remaining 22 studies either did not follow participants for very long or did not put people into treatment groups so could not directly compare ECs with something else. These studies can tell us less about how ECs might help with quitting smoking but can tell us about short-term safety. The two randomized trials, conducted in New Zealand and Italy, compared ECs with and without nicotine. We judged these studies to be at low risk of bias. In one study, people wanted to quit smoking, while in the other study they did not. The trial in people who wanted to quit smoking also compared ECs to nicotine patches. Combined results from two studies, involving 662 people, showed that using an EC containing nicotine increased the chances of stopping smoking in the long term compared to using an EC without nicotine. We could not determine if EC was better than a nicotine patch in helping people stop smoking, because the number of participants in the study was low. More studies are needed to evaluate this effect. The other studies were of lower quality, but they supported these findings. None of the studies found that smokers who used EC short- to mid-term (for two years or less) had an increased health risk compared to smokers who did not use ECs. The quality of the evidence overall is low because it is based on only a small number of studies, although these studies were well conducted. More studies of ECs are needed. Some are already underway." } ]	*TASK* the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature *INPUT* the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature *OUTPUT* the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature *DOCUMENTATION* *EXAMPLES* Input: Our searches identified over 1700 records, from which we include 24 completed studies (three RCTs, two of which were eligible for our cessation meta-analysis, and 21 cohort studies). Eleven of these studies are new for this version of the review. We identified 27 ongoing studies. Two RCTs compared EC with placebo (non-nicotine) EC, with a combined sample size of 662 participants. One trial included minimal telephone support and one recruited smokers not intending to quit, and both used early EC models with low nicotine content and poor battery life. We judged the RCTs to be at low risk of bias, but under the GRADE system we rated the overall quality of the evidence for our outcomes as ‘low’ or ‘very low’, because of imprecision due to the small number of trials. A ‘low’ grade means that further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. A ‘very low’ grade means we are very uncertain about the estimate. Participants using an EC were more likely to have abstained from smoking for at least six months compared with participants using placebo EC (RR 2.29, 95% CI 1.05 to 4.96; placebo 4% versus EC 9%; 2 studies; 662 participants. GRADE: low). The one study that compared EC to nicotine patch found no significant difference in six-month abstinence rates, but the confidence intervals do not rule out a clinically important difference (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.34; 584 participants. GRADE: very low). Of the included studies, none reported serious adverse events considered related to EC use. The most frequently reported AEs were mouth and throat irritation, most commonly dissipating over time. One RCT provided data on the proportion of participants experiencing any adverse events. The proportion of participants in the study arms experiencing adverse events was similar (ECs vs placebo EC: RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.34 (298 participants); ECs vs patch: RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.22 (456 participants)). The second RCT reported no statistically significant difference in the frequency of AEs at three- or 12-month follow-up between the EC and placebo EC groups, and showed that in all groups the frequency of AEs (with the exception of throat irritation) decreased significantly over time. There is evidence from two trials that ECs help smokers to stop smoking in the long term compared with placebo ECs. However, the small number of trials, low event rates and wide confidence intervals around the estimates mean that our confidence in the result is rated 'low' by GRADE standards. The lack of difference between the effect of ECs compared with nicotine patches found in one trial is uncertain for similar reasons. None of the included studies (short- to mid-term, up to two years) detected serious adverse events considered possibly related to EC use. The most commonly reported adverse effects were irritation of the mouth and throat. The long-term safety of ECs is unknown. In this update, we found a further 15 ongoing RCTs which appear eligible for this review. Output:
CochranePLS3500	[ { "from": "human", "value": "*TASK\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nINPUT\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nOUTPUT\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\nDOCUMENTATION\n\nEXAMPLES*\n\nInput: Three trials, which included 140 infants, met the inclusion criteria. All three trials compared a nebulized dose of salbutamol with placebo; in one of the three trials newborns were assigned to two different doses of the intervention. We found differences in the duration of oxygen therapy (mean difference (MD) -43.10 hours, 95% confidence interval (CI) -81.60 to -4.60). There were no differences in the need for continuous positive airway pressure (risk ratio (RR) 0.73, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.39; risk difference (RD) -0.15, 95% CI -0.45 to 0.16; 1 study, 46 infants) or the need for mechanical ventilation (RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.06 to 34.79; RD 0.03, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.14; 1 study, 46 infants). Tests for heterogeneity were not applicable for any of the analyses as only one study was included. Among secondary outcomes, we found no differences in terms of duration of hospital stay and tachypnea. The quality of the evidence was very low due to the imprecision of the estimates. One trial is ongoing. At present there is insufficient evidence to determine the efficacy and safety of salbutamol in the management of transient tachypnea of the newborn. The quality of evidence was low due to paucity of included trials, small sample sizes and overall poor methodologic quality.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "In medical literature searches complete to March 2016, we identified and included three clinical trials with 140 newborns comparing salbutamol with placebo. Two studies evaluated a single, nebulized (where the medicine is given in a fine mist) dose of salbutamol, and one study evaluated two different dosages. We found one additional trial that is still underway. Salbutamol reduced the duration of treatment with oxygen in newborns with transient tachypnea (reported in one study); whereas it did not affect the need for respiratory support or any other relevant outcomes. The results of this systematic review were consistent with either a benefit or a detrimental effect of salbutamol and did not provide a definitive answer to the review question." } ]	*TASK* the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature *INPUT* the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature *OUTPUT* the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature *DOCUMENTATION* *EXAMPLES* Input: Three trials, which included 140 infants, met the inclusion criteria. All three trials compared a nebulized dose of salbutamol with placebo; in one of the three trials newborns were assigned to two different doses of the intervention. We found differences in the duration of oxygen therapy (mean difference (MD) -43.10 hours, 95% confidence interval (CI) -81.60 to -4.60). There were no differences in the need for continuous positive airway pressure (risk ratio (RR) 0.73, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.39; risk difference (RD) -0.15, 95% CI -0.45 to 0.16; 1 study, 46 infants) or the need for mechanical ventilation (RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.06 to 34.79; RD 0.03, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.14; 1 study, 46 infants). Tests for heterogeneity were not applicable for any of the analyses as only one study was included. Among secondary outcomes, we found no differences in terms of duration of hospital stay and tachypnea. The quality of the evidence was very low due to the imprecision of the estimates. One trial is ongoing. At present there is insufficient evidence to determine the efficacy and safety of salbutamol in the management of transient tachypnea of the newborn. The quality of evidence was low due to paucity of included trials, small sample sizes and overall poor methodologic quality. Output: