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
CochranePLS1977	[ { "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 of 3449 participants were included. The rate of exchange transfusion was reduced in one study with liberal transfusion criteria (risk ratio (RR) 0.20; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13 to 0.31) but not in the other two more recent studies with stringent criteria (typical RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.19 to 2.28). There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of cerebral palsy (typical RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.50 to 1.85; two studies, 756 participants). However, one large study that reported on neurodevelopmental impairment (a composite outcome including cerebral palsy) found a slightly lower rate of neurodevelopmental impairment with prophylactic phototherapy (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.74 to 0.99; 1804 participants). The prophylactic phototherapy group had lower peak bilirubin levels (mean difference (MD) -2.73; 95% CI -2.89 to -2.57; six studies, 2319 participants) and had fewer neonates with peak unconjugated serum bilirubin levels > 10 mg/dl (typical RR 0.27; 95% CI 0.22 to 0.33; three studies, 1090 participants) or peak unconjugated serum bilirubin levels > 15 mg/dl (typical RR 0.13; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.23; four studies, 1116 participants). There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of all-cause mortality between the two groups (typical RR 1.08; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.26; four studies, 3044 participants). Prophylactic phototherapy helps to maintain a lower serum bilirubin concentration and may have an effect on the rate of exchange transfusion and the risk of neurodevelopmental impairment. However, further well-designed studies are needed to determine the efficacy and safety of prophylactic phototherapy on long-term outcomes including neurodevelopmental outcomes.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "In this review we evaluated the efficacy and safety of prophylactic phototherapy in preventing jaundice in preterm or LBW infants. A total of nine clinical trials representing 3449 infants were included. The findings suggest that phototherapy initiated soon after birth (within 36 hours) for preterm or low birth weight infants may prevent the serum bilirubin from reaching a level that would require exchange transfusion and may reduce the risk of impairment of brain and central nervous system development. However, further well-designed studies are needed to evaluate the effects of prophylactic phototherapy on brain and central nervous system development and other long-term outcomes." } ]	*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 of 3449 participants were included. The rate of exchange transfusion was reduced in one study with liberal transfusion criteria (risk ratio (RR) 0.20; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13 to 0.31) but not in the other two more recent studies with stringent criteria (typical RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.19 to 2.28). There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of cerebral palsy (typical RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.50 to 1.85; two studies, 756 participants). However, one large study that reported on neurodevelopmental impairment (a composite outcome including cerebral palsy) found a slightly lower rate of neurodevelopmental impairment with prophylactic phototherapy (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.74 to 0.99; 1804 participants). The prophylactic phototherapy group had lower peak bilirubin levels (mean difference (MD) -2.73; 95% CI -2.89 to -2.57; six studies, 2319 participants) and had fewer neonates with peak unconjugated serum bilirubin levels > 10 mg/dl (typical RR 0.27; 95% CI 0.22 to 0.33; three studies, 1090 participants) or peak unconjugated serum bilirubin levels > 15 mg/dl (typical RR 0.13; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.23; four studies, 1116 participants). There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of all-cause mortality between the two groups (typical RR 1.08; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.26; four studies, 3044 participants). Prophylactic phototherapy helps to maintain a lower serum bilirubin concentration and may have an effect on the rate of exchange transfusion and the risk of neurodevelopmental impairment. However, further well-designed studies are needed to determine the efficacy and safety of prophylactic phototherapy on long-term outcomes including neurodevelopmental outcomes. Output:
CochranePLS2591	[ { "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: Only one study fulfilled the criteria (Amato 1988). 20 full term babies requiring exchange transfusion for hemolytic jaundice due to ABO incompatibility were randomly allocated to receive single or double volume exchange transfusion. Base line characteristics of both groups were similar with regards to birth weight 3260 (SD 390) g vs. 3350 SD (410) g, gestational age 39 (SD 1) week vs. 40 (SD 0.8) week, immediate pre exchange bilirubin level 199 (SD 33) micromol/L vs. 216 (SD 55) micromol/L. Both groups were treated equally apart from the volume of blood used for exchange transfusion. Total bilirubin levels immediately after exchange transfusion were not significantly different in either group. No long term neurodevelopmental outcome was examined in this study. There was insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of single volume exchange transfusion as opposed to double volume exchange transfusion in jaundiced newborns. A change from the current practice of double volume exchange transfusions for severe jaundice in newborns infant, cannot be recommended on current evidence.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "This review was undertaken to examine if single volume (removal of blood equivalent to the blood volume of the baby) is as effective as double volume (removal of twice blood volume of the baby) in reducing the brain damage and bilirubin levels in newborn infants with severe jaundice. Only one randomised trial fulfilled the criteria for inclusion in the analysis. This study compared single and double volume exchange transfusion in jaundice due to ABO hemolytic jaundice. The study found no significant difference in bilirubin levels following exchange. This study did not look at any long term neurodevelopmental outcome (brain damage). Based on the available data, there is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of single volume exchange transfusion as opposed to double volume exchange transfusion in jaundiced newborns." } ]	*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: Only one study fulfilled the criteria (Amato 1988). 20 full term babies requiring exchange transfusion for hemolytic jaundice due to ABO incompatibility were randomly allocated to receive single or double volume exchange transfusion. Base line characteristics of both groups were similar with regards to birth weight 3260 (SD 390) g vs. 3350 SD (410) g, gestational age 39 (SD 1) week vs. 40 (SD 0.8) week, immediate pre exchange bilirubin level 199 (SD 33) micromol/L vs. 216 (SD 55) micromol/L. Both groups were treated equally apart from the volume of blood used for exchange transfusion. Total bilirubin levels immediately after exchange transfusion were not significantly different in either group. No long term neurodevelopmental outcome was examined in this study. There was insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of single volume exchange transfusion as opposed to double volume exchange transfusion in jaundiced newborns. A change from the current practice of double volume exchange transfusions for severe jaundice in newborns infant, cannot be recommended on current evidence. Output:
CochranePLS1788	[ { "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 90 studies; 88 from field settings in Africa. The median S. haematobium infection prevalence was 41% (range 1% to 89%) and 36% for S. mansoni (range 8% to 95%). Study design and conduct were poorly reported against current standards. Tests for S. haematobium Urine reagent test strips versus microscopy Compared to microscopy, the detection of microhaematuria on test strips had the highest sensitivity and specificity (sensitivity 75%, 95% CI 71% to 79%; specificity 87%, 95% CI 84% to 90%; 74 studies, 102,447 participants). For proteinuria, sensitivity was 61% and specificity was 82% (82,113 participants); and for leukocyturia, sensitivity was 58% and specificity 61% (1532 participants). However, the difference in overall test accuracy between the urine reagent strips for microhaematuria and proteinuria was not found to be different when we compared separate populations (P = 0.25), or when direct comparisons within the same individuals were performed (paired studies; P = 0.21). When tests were evaluated against the higher quality reference standard (when multiple samples were analysed), sensitivity was marginally lower for microhaematuria (71% vs 75%) and for proteinuria (49% vs 61%). The specificity of these tests was comparable. Antigen assay Compared to microscopy, the CCA test showed considerable heterogeneity; meta-analytic sensitivity estimate was 39%, 95% CI 6% to 73%; specificity 78%, 95% CI 55% to 100% (four studies, 901 participants). Tests for S. mansoni Compared to microscopy, the CCA test meta-analytic estimates for detecting S. mansoni at a single threshold of trace positive were: sensitivity 89% (95% CI 86% to 92%); and specificity 55% (95% CI 46% to 65%; 15 studies, 6091 participants) Against a higher quality reference standard, the sensitivity results were comparable (89% vs 88%) but specificity was higher (66% vs 55%). For the CAA test, sensitivity ranged from 47% to 94%, and specificity from 8% to 100% (four studies, 1583 participants). Among the evaluated tests for S. haematobium infection, microhaematuria correctly detected the largest proportions of infections and non-infections identified by microscopy. The CCA POC test for S. mansoni detects a very large proportion of infections identified by microscopy, but it misclassifies a large proportion of microscopy negatives as positives in endemic areas with a moderate to high prevalence of infection, possibly because the test is potentially more sensitive than microscopy.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "We included 90 studies involving almost 200,000 people, with 88 of these studies carried out in Africa in field settings. Study design and conduct were poorly reported against current expectations. Based on our statistical model, we found: • Among the urine strips for detecting urinary schistosomiasis, the strips for detecting blood were better than those detecting protein or white cells (sensitivity and specificity for blood 75% and 87%; for protein 61% and 82%; and for white cells 58% and 61%, respectively). • For urinary schistosomiasis, the parasite antigen test performance was worse (sensitivity, 39% and specificity, 78%) than urine strips for detecting blood. • For intestinal schistosomiasis, the parasite antigen urine test, detected many infections identified by microscopy but wrongly labelled many uninfected people as sick (sensitivity, 89% and specificity, 55%). What are the consequences of using these tests? If we take 1000 people, of which 410 have urinary schistosomiasis on microscopy testing, then using the strip detecting blood in the urine would misclassify 77 uninfected people as infected, and thus may receive unnecessary treatment; and it would wrongly classify 102 infected people as uninfected, who thus may not receive treatment. If we take 1000 people, of which 360 have intestinal schistosomiasis on microscopy testing, then the antigen test would misclassify 288 uninfected people as infected. These people may be given unnecessary treatment. This test also would wrongly classify 40 infected people as uninfected who thus may not receive treatment. Conclusion of review For urinary schistosomiasis, the urine strip for detecting blood leads to some infected people being missed and some non-infected people being diagnosed with the condition, but is better than the protein or white cell tests. The parasite antigen test is not accurate. For intestinal schistosomiasis, the parasite antigen urine test classifies many microscopy negative people as being infected. This finding may be explained by the low sensitivity of microscopy." } ]	*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 90 studies; 88 from field settings in Africa. The median S. haematobium infection prevalence was 41% (range 1% to 89%) and 36% for S. mansoni (range 8% to 95%). Study design and conduct were poorly reported against current standards. Tests for S. haematobium Urine reagent test strips versus microscopy Compared to microscopy, the detection of microhaematuria on test strips had the highest sensitivity and specificity (sensitivity 75%, 95% CI 71% to 79%; specificity 87%, 95% CI 84% to 90%; 74 studies, 102,447 participants). For proteinuria, sensitivity was 61% and specificity was 82% (82,113 participants); and for leukocyturia, sensitivity was 58% and specificity 61% (1532 participants). However, the difference in overall test accuracy between the urine reagent strips for microhaematuria and proteinuria was not found to be different when we compared separate populations (P = 0.25), or when direct comparisons within the same individuals were performed (paired studies; P = 0.21). When tests were evaluated against the higher quality reference standard (when multiple samples were analysed), sensitivity was marginally lower for microhaematuria (71% vs 75%) and for proteinuria (49% vs 61%). The specificity of these tests was comparable. Antigen assay Compared to microscopy, the CCA test showed considerable heterogeneity; meta-analytic sensitivity estimate was 39%, 95% CI 6% to 73%; specificity 78%, 95% CI 55% to 100% (four studies, 901 participants). Tests for S. mansoni Compared to microscopy, the CCA test meta-analytic estimates for detecting S. mansoni at a single threshold of trace positive were: sensitivity 89% (95% CI 86% to 92%); and specificity 55% (95% CI 46% to 65%; 15 studies, 6091 participants) Against a higher quality reference standard, the sensitivity results were comparable (89% vs 88%) but specificity was higher (66% vs 55%). For the CAA test, sensitivity ranged from 47% to 94%, and specificity from 8% to 100% (four studies, 1583 participants). Among the evaluated tests for S. haematobium infection, microhaematuria correctly detected the largest proportions of infections and non-infections identified by microscopy. The CCA POC test for S. mansoni detects a very large proportion of infections identified by microscopy, but it misclassifies a large proportion of microscopy negatives as positives in endemic areas with a moderate to high prevalence of infection, possibly because the test is potentially more sensitive than microscopy. Output:
CochranePLS75	[ { "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 two RCTs and one CCT (total number of participants 149) evaluating the use of amifostine versus no additional treatment in the original version of the review; the updates identified no additional studies. Two studies included children with osteosarcoma, and the other study included children with hepatoblastoma. Children received cisplatin only or a combination of cisplatin and carboplatin, either intra-arterially or intravenously. Pooling of results of the included studies was not possible. From individual studies the effect of amifostine on symptomatic ototoxicity only (i.e. National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria version 2 (NCICTCv2) or modified Brock grade 2 or higher) and combined asymptomatic and symptomatic ototoxicity (i.e. NCICTCv2 or modified Brock grade 1 or higher) were uncertain (low-certainty evidence). Only one study including children with osteosarcoma treated with intra-arterial cisplatin provided information on tumour response, defined as the number of participants with a good or partial remission. The available-data analysis (data were missing for one participant), best-case scenario analysis and worst-case scenario analysis showed a difference in favour of amifostine, although the certainty of evidence for this effect was low. There was no information on survival for any of the included studies. Only one study, including children with osteosarcoma treated with intra-arterial cisplatin, provided data on the number of participants with adverse effects other than ototoxicity grade 3 or higher (on NCICTCv2 scale). There was low-certainty evidence that grade 3 or 4 vomiting was higher with amifostine (risk ratio (RR) 9.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.99 to 41.12). The effects on cardiotoxicity and renal toxicity grade 3 or 4 were uncertain (low-certainty evidence). None of the studies evaluated quality of life. In the recent update, we also identified one RCT including 109 children with localized hepatoblastoma evaluating the use of sodium thiosulfate versus no additional treatment. Children received intravenous cisplatin only (one child also received carboplatin). There was moderate-certainty evidence that both symptomatic ototoxicity only (i.e. Brock criteria grade 2 or higher) and combined asymptomatic and symptomatic ototoxicity (i.e. Brock criteria grade 1 or higher) was lower with sodium thiosulfate (combined asymptomatic and symptomatic ototoxicity: RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.81; symptomatic ototoxicity only: RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.83). The effect of sodium thiosulfate on tumour response (defined as number of participants with a complete or partial response at the end of treatment), overall survival (calculated from time of randomization to death or last follow-up), event-free survival (calculated from time of randomization until disease progression, disease relapse, second primary cancer, death, or last follow-up, whichever came first) and adverse effects other than hearing loss and tinnitus grade 3 or higher (according to National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria Adverse Effects version 3 (NCICTCAEv3) criteria) was uncertain (low-certainty evidence for all these outcomes). Quality of life was not assessed. We found no eligible studies for possible otoprotective medical interventions other than amifostine and sodium thiosulfate and for other types of malignancies. At the moment there is no evidence from individual studies in children with osteosarcoma or hepatoblastoma treated with different platinum analogues and dosage schedules that underscores the use of amifostine as an otoprotective intervention as compared to no additional treatment. Since pooling of results was not possible and the evidence was of low certainty, no definitive conclusions can be made. Since we found only one RCT evaluating the use of sodium thiosulfate in children with localized hepatoblastoma treated with cisplatin, no definitive conclusions on benefits and harms can be drawn. It should be noted that 'no evidence of effect', as identified in this review, is not the same as 'evidence of no effect'. We identified no eligible studies for other possible otoprotective medical interventions and other types of malignancies, so no conclusions can be made about their efficacy in preventing ototoxicity in children treated with platinum-based therapy. More high-quality research is needed.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "The evidence is current to January 2019. We found two randomized studies (clinical studies where people are randomly put into one of two or more treatment groups) and one controlled study (clinical studies where people are put into one of two or more treatment groups but this is not done in a random way) (149 participants), all comparing amifostine with no additional treatment. Two studies included children with osteosarcoma (a type of bone cancer), the other study included children with hepatoblastoma (a type of liver cancer). Combining the results of the included studies was not possible. It is not clear how long participants were monitored. We also found one randomized study (109 children with localized hepatoblastoma) comparing sodium thiosulfate with no additional treatment. Half of the participants were monitored for more than four years. At the moment there is no evidence from individual studies showing that the use of amifostine prevents hearing loss. Only one study reported results on cancer response and side effects, so we could make no definitive conclusions. None of the studies assessed survival and quality of life. Hearing loss seemed to be lower with the use of sodium thiosulfate, but the effect of sodium thiosulfate on cancer response and side effects was uncertain. We identified no adequate studies for other possible drugs to prevent hearing loss and for other types of cancer. Before definitive conclusions can be made about the usefulness of possible medicines to prevent hearing loss (amifostine, sodium thiosulfate or another medicine) in children treated with platinum chemotherapy more high-quality research is needed. The quality of the evidence was moderate (for hearing loss with sodium thiosulfate) to low (for all other outcomes (results)). The quality of the evidence was limited because of issues with the study design (for all outcomes) and small numbers of participants in each study (for all outcomes except hearing loss with sodium thiosulfate)." } ]	*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 two RCTs and one CCT (total number of participants 149) evaluating the use of amifostine versus no additional treatment in the original version of the review; the updates identified no additional studies. Two studies included children with osteosarcoma, and the other study included children with hepatoblastoma. Children received cisplatin only or a combination of cisplatin and carboplatin, either intra-arterially or intravenously. Pooling of results of the included studies was not possible. From individual studies the effect of amifostine on symptomatic ototoxicity only (i.e. National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria version 2 (NCICTCv2) or modified Brock grade 2 or higher) and combined asymptomatic and symptomatic ototoxicity (i.e. NCICTCv2 or modified Brock grade 1 or higher) were uncertain (low-certainty evidence). Only one study including children with osteosarcoma treated with intra-arterial cisplatin provided information on tumour response, defined as the number of participants with a good or partial remission. The available-data analysis (data were missing for one participant), best-case scenario analysis and worst-case scenario analysis showed a difference in favour of amifostine, although the certainty of evidence for this effect was low. There was no information on survival for any of the included studies. Only one study, including children with osteosarcoma treated with intra-arterial cisplatin, provided data on the number of participants with adverse effects other than ototoxicity grade 3 or higher (on NCICTCv2 scale). There was low-certainty evidence that grade 3 or 4 vomiting was higher with amifostine (risk ratio (RR) 9.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.99 to 41.12). The effects on cardiotoxicity and renal toxicity grade 3 or 4 were uncertain (low-certainty evidence). None of the studies evaluated quality of life. In the recent update, we also identified one RCT including 109 children with localized hepatoblastoma evaluating the use of sodium thiosulfate versus no additional treatment. Children received intravenous cisplatin only (one child also received carboplatin). There was moderate-certainty evidence that both symptomatic ototoxicity only (i.e. Brock criteria grade 2 or higher) and combined asymptomatic and symptomatic ototoxicity (i.e. Brock criteria grade 1 or higher) was lower with sodium thiosulfate (combined asymptomatic and symptomatic ototoxicity: RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.81; symptomatic ototoxicity only: RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.83). The effect of sodium thiosulfate on tumour response (defined as number of participants with a complete or partial response at the end of treatment), overall survival (calculated from time of randomization to death or last follow-up), event-free survival (calculated from time of randomization until disease progression, disease relapse, second primary cancer, death, or last follow-up, whichever came first) and adverse effects other than hearing loss and tinnitus grade 3 or higher (according to National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria Adverse Effects version 3 (NCICTCAEv3) criteria) was uncertain (low-certainty evidence for all these outcomes). Quality of life was not assessed. We found no eligible studies for possible otoprotective medical interventions other than amifostine and sodium thiosulfate and for other types of malignancies. At the moment there is no evidence from individual studies in children with osteosarcoma or hepatoblastoma treated with different platinum analogues and dosage schedules that underscores the use of amifostine as an otoprotective intervention as compared to no additional treatment. Since pooling of results was not possible and the evidence was of low certainty, no definitive conclusions can be made. Since we found only one RCT evaluating the use of sodium thiosulfate in children with localized hepatoblastoma treated with cisplatin, no definitive conclusions on benefits and harms can be drawn. It should be noted that 'no evidence of effect', as identified in this review, is not the same as 'evidence of no effect'. We identified no eligible studies for other possible otoprotective medical interventions and other types of malignancies, so no conclusions can be made about their efficacy in preventing ototoxicity in children treated with platinum-based therapy. More high-quality research is needed. Output:
CochranePLS3058	[ { "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 56 trials with 3105 participants in this updated review. The average age of the participants was 60 years, and the studies were carried out in both inpatient and outpatient settings. All participants had at least some walking difficulties and many could not walk without assistance. Overall, the use of treadmill training did not increase the chances of walking independently compared with other physiotherapy interventions (risk difference (RD) -0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.02 to 0.02; 18 trials, 1210 participants; P = 0.94; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). Overall, the use of treadmill training in walking rehabilitation for people after stroke increased the walking velocity and walking endurance significantly. The pooled mean difference (MD) (random-effects model) for walking velocity was 0.06 m/s (95% CI 0.03 to 0.09; 47 trials, 2323 participants; P < 0.0001; I² = 44%; moderate-quality evidence) and the pooled MD for walking endurance was 14.19 metres (95% CI 2.92 to 25.46; 28 trials, 1680 participants; P = 0.01; I² = 27%; moderate-quality evidence). Overall, the use of treadmill training with body weight support in walking rehabilitation for people after stroke did not increase the walking velocity and walking endurance at the end of scheduled follow-up. The pooled MD (random-effects model) for walking velocity was 0.03 m/s (95% CI -0.05 to 0.10; 12 trials, 954 participants; P = 0.50; I² = 55%; low-quality evidence) and the pooled MD for walking endurance was 21.64 metres (95% CI -4.70 to 47.98; 10 trials, 882 participants; P = 0.11; I² = 47%; low-quality evidence). In 38 studies with a total of 1571 participants who were independent in walking at study onset, the use of treadmill training increased the walking velocity significantly. The pooled MD (random-effects model) for walking velocity was 0.08 m/s (95% CI 0.05 to 0.12; P < 0.00001; I2 = 49%). There were insufficient data to comment on any effects on quality of life or activities of daily living. Adverse events and dropouts did not occur more frequently in people receiving treadmill training and these were not judged to be clinically serious events. Overall, people after stroke who receive treadmill training, with or without body weight support, are not more likely to improve their ability to walk independently compared with people after stroke not receiving treadmill training, but walking speed and walking endurance may improve slightly in the short term. Specifically, people with stroke who are able to walk (but not people who are dependent in walking at start of treatment) appear to benefit most from this type of intervention with regard to walking speed and walking endurance. This review did not find, however, that improvements in walking speed and endurance may have persisting beneficial effects. Further research should specifically investigate the effects of different frequencies, durations, or intensities (in terms of speed increments and inclination) of treadmill training, as well as the use of handrails, in ambulatory participants, but not in dependent walkers.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "We identified 56 relevant trials, involving 3105 participants, up to March 2017. Twenty-six studies (1410 participants) compared treadmill training with body weight support to another physiotherapy treatment; 20 studies (889 participants) compared treadmill training without body weight support to other physiotherapy treatment, no treatment, or sham treatment; two studies (100 participants) compared treadmill training with body weight support to treadmill training without body weight support; and four studies (147 participants) did not state whether they used body weight support or not. The average age of the participants was 60 years, and the studies were carried out in both inpatient and outpatient settings. The results of this review were partly inconclusive. People after stroke who receive treadmill training with or without body weight support are not more likely to improve their ability to walk independently. The quality of this evidence was low. However, treadmill training with or without body weight support may improve walking speed and walking capacity compared with people not receiving treadmill training. The quality of this evidence was moderate. More specifically, people after stroke who are able to walk at the start of therapy appear to benefit most from this type of intervention, but people who are not able to walk independently at therapy onset do not benefit. This review found that improvements in walking speed and endurance in people who can walk have no lasting positive effect. Unwanted events such as falls and dropouts were not more common in people receiving treadmill training. Further analysis showed that treadmill training in the first three months after stroke produces only modest improvements in walking speed and endurance. For people treated at a later stage (more than six months after their stroke) the effects were smaller. More frequent treadmill training (for example, five times per week) appears to produce greater effects on walking speed and endurance; however, this was not conclusive. Brief periods of treadmill training (duration of four weeks) provided a modest improvement in walking speed but not enough to be clinically important. Effects of the age of participants or the type of stroke were not investigated in this review. In practice, it appears that people who can walk after stroke, but not those who cannot, may profit from treadmill training (with and without body weight support) to improve their walking abilities. Further research should specifically investigate the effects of different frequencies, durations or intensities (in terms of speed increments and inclination) of treadmill training, as well as the use of handrails. Future trials should include people who can already walk, but not dependent walkers who are unable to walk unaided. Future research should analyse age groups, gender, and type of stroke to see who might benefit most from this treatment. The quality of evidence for treadmill training for walking after stroke was low to moderate. It was moderate for walking speed and walking endurance at the end of treatment and low for improving the ability to walk independently." } ]	*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 56 trials with 3105 participants in this updated review. The average age of the participants was 60 years, and the studies were carried out in both inpatient and outpatient settings. All participants had at least some walking difficulties and many could not walk without assistance. Overall, the use of treadmill training did not increase the chances of walking independently compared with other physiotherapy interventions (risk difference (RD) -0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.02 to 0.02; 18 trials, 1210 participants; P = 0.94; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). Overall, the use of treadmill training in walking rehabilitation for people after stroke increased the walking velocity and walking endurance significantly. The pooled mean difference (MD) (random-effects model) for walking velocity was 0.06 m/s (95% CI 0.03 to 0.09; 47 trials, 2323 participants; P < 0.0001; I² = 44%; moderate-quality evidence) and the pooled MD for walking endurance was 14.19 metres (95% CI 2.92 to 25.46; 28 trials, 1680 participants; P = 0.01; I² = 27%; moderate-quality evidence). Overall, the use of treadmill training with body weight support in walking rehabilitation for people after stroke did not increase the walking velocity and walking endurance at the end of scheduled follow-up. The pooled MD (random-effects model) for walking velocity was 0.03 m/s (95% CI -0.05 to 0.10; 12 trials, 954 participants; P = 0.50; I² = 55%; low-quality evidence) and the pooled MD for walking endurance was 21.64 metres (95% CI -4.70 to 47.98; 10 trials, 882 participants; P = 0.11; I² = 47%; low-quality evidence). In 38 studies with a total of 1571 participants who were independent in walking at study onset, the use of treadmill training increased the walking velocity significantly. The pooled MD (random-effects model) for walking velocity was 0.08 m/s (95% CI 0.05 to 0.12; P < 0.00001; I2 = 49%). There were insufficient data to comment on any effects on quality of life or activities of daily living. Adverse events and dropouts did not occur more frequently in people receiving treadmill training and these were not judged to be clinically serious events. Overall, people after stroke who receive treadmill training, with or without body weight support, are not more likely to improve their ability to walk independently compared with people after stroke not receiving treadmill training, but walking speed and walking endurance may improve slightly in the short term. Specifically, people with stroke who are able to walk (but not people who are dependent in walking at start of treatment) appear to benefit most from this type of intervention with regard to walking speed and walking endurance. This review did not find, however, that improvements in walking speed and endurance may have persisting beneficial effects. Further research should specifically investigate the effects of different frequencies, durations, or intensities (in terms of speed increments and inclination) of treadmill training, as well as the use of handrails, in ambulatory participants, but not in dependent walkers. Output:
CochranePLS1906	[ { "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 randomized studies (duration 7 to 15 months) involving 116 males. Risk of bias was judged to be high in two studies due to the open-label study design and in one study due to attrition bias. Two studies compared on-demand treatment to prophylaxis with bypassing agents. In one study (34 males) prophylaxis significantly reduced mean overall bleeding rates, MD - 7.27 (95% CI -9.92 to -4.62) (low quality evidence), mean number of overall bleeding events per month, MD -1.10 (95% CI -1.54 to -0.66), mean number of hemarthrosis, MD -6.60 (95% CI -9.32 to -3.88) (low quality evidence) and mean number of joints that had hemarthrosis, MD -0.90 (95% CI -1.36 to -0.44). The meta-analysis did not conclusively demonstrate significant benefit of prophylaxis on health-related quality of life as measured by Haem-A-QoL score, EQ-5D total score and utility score, EQ-5D VAS and SF-36 physical summary and mental summary score (low quality evidence for all health-related quality of life analyses). The remaining two studies compared dose regimens. The results from one study (22 males) did not conclusively demonstrate benefit or harm of high-dose versus low-dose recombinant activated factor VIIa (rFVIIa) as a prophylaxis for overall bleeding rate, MD -0.82 (95% CI -2.27 to 0.63) (moderate quality evidence), target joint bleeding rate, MD -3.20 (95% CI -7.23 to 0.83) (moderate quality evidence) and serious adverse events, RR 9.00 (95% CI, 0.54 to 149.50) (moderate quality evidence). The overall quality of evidence was moderate to low due to imprecision from limited information provided by studies with small sample sizes and incomplete outcome data in one study. The evidence suggests that prophylaxis with bypassing agents may be effective in reducing bleeding in males with hemophilia with inhibitors. However, there is a lack of evidence for the superiority of one agent over the other or for the optimum dosage regimen. Further studies are needed to evaluate the benefits and harms of prophylaxis treatment on health-related quality of life, as well as the effects of dose of bypassing agents on the outcomes.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "We searched the scientific databases for clinical studies evaluating the effects of bypassing agents in men with hemophilia A or B with inhibitors. We included four studies (duration 7 to 15 months), involving 116 individuals. Two studies compared the prophylactic infusion with bypassing agent to on-demand treatment (treatment given only after the bleeding occurred) and two studies compared high-dose to low-dose preventative therapies. Limited evidence showed that prophylactic use of bypassing agents reduced bleeding events, joint bleeding events and number of affected joints. There was no evidence for improved quality of life amongst those who received prophylaxis as compared to those who received on-demand therapy. There was no evidence for a difference in benefits or harms between high- and low-dose rFVIIa for prophylaxis. The overall quality of evidence of these studies was moderate to low as the included studies were small and provided limited information. Also, in one of the studies, up to 24% of the men recruited were not included in the analysis of the results, which further increases imprecision of 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: We included four randomized studies (duration 7 to 15 months) involving 116 males. Risk of bias was judged to be high in two studies due to the open-label study design and in one study due to attrition bias. Two studies compared on-demand treatment to prophylaxis with bypassing agents. In one study (34 males) prophylaxis significantly reduced mean overall bleeding rates, MD - 7.27 (95% CI -9.92 to -4.62) (low quality evidence), mean number of overall bleeding events per month, MD -1.10 (95% CI -1.54 to -0.66), mean number of hemarthrosis, MD -6.60 (95% CI -9.32 to -3.88) (low quality evidence) and mean number of joints that had hemarthrosis, MD -0.90 (95% CI -1.36 to -0.44). The meta-analysis did not conclusively demonstrate significant benefit of prophylaxis on health-related quality of life as measured by Haem-A-QoL score, EQ-5D total score and utility score, EQ-5D VAS and SF-36 physical summary and mental summary score (low quality evidence for all health-related quality of life analyses). The remaining two studies compared dose regimens. The results from one study (22 males) did not conclusively demonstrate benefit or harm of high-dose versus low-dose recombinant activated factor VIIa (rFVIIa) as a prophylaxis for overall bleeding rate, MD -0.82 (95% CI -2.27 to 0.63) (moderate quality evidence), target joint bleeding rate, MD -3.20 (95% CI -7.23 to 0.83) (moderate quality evidence) and serious adverse events, RR 9.00 (95% CI, 0.54 to 149.50) (moderate quality evidence). The overall quality of evidence was moderate to low due to imprecision from limited information provided by studies with small sample sizes and incomplete outcome data in one study. The evidence suggests that prophylaxis with bypassing agents may be effective in reducing bleeding in males with hemophilia with inhibitors. However, there is a lack of evidence for the superiority of one agent over the other or for the optimum dosage regimen. Further studies are needed to evaluate the benefits and harms of prophylaxis treatment on health-related quality of life, as well as the effects of dose of bypassing agents on the outcomes. Output:
CochranePLS989	[ { "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 two RCTs with 297 participants comparing PUL to sham surgery or TURP. The mean age was 65.6 years and mean International Prostate Symptom Score was 22.7. Mean prostate volume was 42.2 mL. We considered review outcomes measured up to and including 12 months after randomization as short-term and later than 12 months as long-term. For patient-reported outcomes, lower scores indicate more urological symptom improvement and higher quality of life. In contrast, higher scores refers to better erectile and ejaculatory function. PUL versus sham: based on one study of 206 randomized participants with short follow-up (up to three months), PUL may lead to a clinically important improvement in urological symptom scores (mean difference (MD) –5.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) –7.44 to –2.96; low-certainty evidence) and likely improves quality of life (MD –1.20, 95% CI –1.67 to –0.73; moderate-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether PUL increases major adverse events (very low-certainty evidence). There were no retreatments reported in either study group by three months. PUL likely results in little to no difference in erectile function (MD –1.40, 95% CI –3.24 to 0.44; moderate-certainty evidence) and ejaculatory function (MD 0.50, 95% CI –0.38 to 1.38; moderate-certainty evidence). PUL versus TURP: based on one study of 91 randomized participants with a short follow-up (up to 12 months), PUL may result in a substantially lesser improvement in urological symptom scores than TURP (MD 4.50, 95% CI 1.10 to 7.90; low-certainty evidence). PUL may result in a slightly reduced or similar quality of life (MD 0.30, 95% CI –0.49 to 1.09; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain whether PUL may cause fewer major adverse events but increased retreatments (both very low-certainty evidence). PUL probably results in little to no difference in erectile function (MD 0.80, 95% CI –1.50 to 3.10; moderate-certainty evidence), but probably results in substantially better ejaculatory function (MD 5.00, 95% CI 3.08 to 6.92; moderate-certainty evidence). With regards to longer term follow-up (up to 24 months) based on one study of 91 randomized participants, PUL may result in a substantially lesser improvement in urological symptom score (MD 6.10, 95% CI 2.16 to 10.04; low-certainty evidence) and result in little worse to no difference in quality of life (MD 0.80, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.60; low-certainty evidence). The study did not report on major adverse events. We are very uncertain whether PUL increases retreatment (very low-certainty evidence). PUL likely results in little to no difference in erectile function (MD 1.60, 95% CI –0.80 to 4.00; moderate-certainty evidence), but may result in substantially better ejaculatory function (MD 4.30, 95% CI 2.17 to 6.43; low-certainty evidence). We were unable to perform any of the predefined secondary analyses for either comparison. We found no evidence for other comparisons such as PUL versus laser ablation or enucleation. PUL appears less effective than TURP in improving urological symptoms both short-term and long term, while quality of life outcomes may be similar. The effect on erectile function appears similar but ejaculatory function may be better. We are uncertain about major adverse events short-term and found no long-term information. We are very uncertain about retreatment rates both short-term and long-term. We were unable to assess the effects of PUL in subgroups based on age, prostate size, or symptom severity and also could not assess how PUL compared to other surgical management approaches. Given the large numbers of alternative treatment modalities to treat men with LUTS secondary to BPH, this represents important information that should be shared with men considering surgical treatment.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "We included two randomized controlled studies (clinical trials where people are randomly put into one of two or more treatment groups) with 297 men comparing PUL to sham surgery (participants are made to believe they received treatment, while in reality they did not) or transurethral resection of prostate (TURP: removing the excess prostate growth using a camera and an electrically activated resecting loop inserted via the penis). The average age of the participants was 65.6 years. Compared to sham surgery up to three months, PUL may improve urinary symptoms and likely improves quality of life without additional unwanted side effects after surgery. In the short term, there were no additional surgeries because PUL did not work. PUL likely does not make erections or ejaculation worse. Compared to TURP up to 24 months, PUL may be less effective in relieving urinary symptoms, but result in similar quality of life. PUL may preserve ejaculation, but may have less unwanted effects on erections than TURP. However, we are either very uncertain or have no evidence about serious unwanted side effects or the need for additional treatment after surgery. Findings of this review are up-to-date until 31 January, 2019. The certainty of evidence for most outcomes was low. This means that the true effect may be substantially different from what this review shows." } ]	*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 two RCTs with 297 participants comparing PUL to sham surgery or TURP. The mean age was 65.6 years and mean International Prostate Symptom Score was 22.7. Mean prostate volume was 42.2 mL. We considered review outcomes measured up to and including 12 months after randomization as short-term and later than 12 months as long-term. For patient-reported outcomes, lower scores indicate more urological symptom improvement and higher quality of life. In contrast, higher scores refers to better erectile and ejaculatory function. PUL versus sham: based on one study of 206 randomized participants with short follow-up (up to three months), PUL may lead to a clinically important improvement in urological symptom scores (mean difference (MD) –5.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) –7.44 to –2.96; low-certainty evidence) and likely improves quality of life (MD –1.20, 95% CI –1.67 to –0.73; moderate-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether PUL increases major adverse events (very low-certainty evidence). There were no retreatments reported in either study group by three months. PUL likely results in little to no difference in erectile function (MD –1.40, 95% CI –3.24 to 0.44; moderate-certainty evidence) and ejaculatory function (MD 0.50, 95% CI –0.38 to 1.38; moderate-certainty evidence). PUL versus TURP: based on one study of 91 randomized participants with a short follow-up (up to 12 months), PUL may result in a substantially lesser improvement in urological symptom scores than TURP (MD 4.50, 95% CI 1.10 to 7.90; low-certainty evidence). PUL may result in a slightly reduced or similar quality of life (MD 0.30, 95% CI –0.49 to 1.09; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain whether PUL may cause fewer major adverse events but increased retreatments (both very low-certainty evidence). PUL probably results in little to no difference in erectile function (MD 0.80, 95% CI –1.50 to 3.10; moderate-certainty evidence), but probably results in substantially better ejaculatory function (MD 5.00, 95% CI 3.08 to 6.92; moderate-certainty evidence). With regards to longer term follow-up (up to 24 months) based on one study of 91 randomized participants, PUL may result in a substantially lesser improvement in urological symptom score (MD 6.10, 95% CI 2.16 to 10.04; low-certainty evidence) and result in little worse to no difference in quality of life (MD 0.80, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.60; low-certainty evidence). The study did not report on major adverse events. We are very uncertain whether PUL increases retreatment (very low-certainty evidence). PUL likely results in little to no difference in erectile function (MD 1.60, 95% CI –0.80 to 4.00; moderate-certainty evidence), but may result in substantially better ejaculatory function (MD 4.30, 95% CI 2.17 to 6.43; low-certainty evidence). We were unable to perform any of the predefined secondary analyses for either comparison. We found no evidence for other comparisons such as PUL versus laser ablation or enucleation. PUL appears less effective than TURP in improving urological symptoms both short-term and long term, while quality of life outcomes may be similar. The effect on erectile function appears similar but ejaculatory function may be better. We are uncertain about major adverse events short-term and found no long-term information. We are very uncertain about retreatment rates both short-term and long-term. We were unable to assess the effects of PUL in subgroups based on age, prostate size, or symptom severity and also could not assess how PUL compared to other surgical management approaches. Given the large numbers of alternative treatment modalities to treat men with LUTS secondary to BPH, this represents important information that should be shared with men considering surgical treatment. Output:
CochranePLS3097	[ { "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 37 studies involving a total of 4129 participants. Risk of bias across the included studies was variable. We judged the GRADE quality of evidence to be very low or low for the primary outcomes where data were available. The majority of participants were over 65 years of age with mild to moderate adult-onset hearing loss. There was a mix of new and experienced hearing aid users. Six of the studies (287 participants) assessed long-term outcomes. All 37 studies tested interventions that could be classified using the CCM as self-management support (ways to help someone to manage their hearing loss and hearing aid(s) better by giving information, practice and experience at listening/communicating or by asking people to practise tasks at home) and/or delivery system design interventions (just changing how the service was delivered). Self-management support interventions We found no studies that investigated the effect of these interventions on adherence, adverse effects or hearing aid benefit. Two studies reported daily hours of hearing aid use but we were unable to combine these in a meta-analysis. There was no evidence of a statistically significant effect on quality of life over the medium term. Self-management support reduced short- to medium-term hearing handicap (two studies, 87 participants; mean difference (MD) -12.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) -23.11 to -2.48 (0 to 100 scale)) and increased the use of verbal communication strategies in the short to medium term (one study, 52 participants; MD 0.72, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.23 (0 to 5 scale)). The clinical significance of these statistical findings is uncertain. It is likely that the outcomes were clinically significant for some, but not all, participants. Our confidence in the quality of this evidence was very low. No self-management support studies reported long-term outcomes. Delivery system design interventions These interventions did not significantly affect adherence or daily hours of hearing aid use in the short to medium term, or adverse effects in the long term. We found no studies that investigated the effect of these interventions on quality of life. There was no evidence of a statistically or clinically significant effect on hearing handicap, hearing aid benefit or the use of verbal communication strategies in the short to medium term. Our confidence in the quality of this evidence was low or very low. Long-term outcome measurement was rare. Combined self-management support/delivery system design interventions One combined intervention showed evidence of a statistically significant effect on adherence in the short term (one study, 167 participants, risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.12). However, there was no evidence of a statistically or clinically significant effect on daily hours of hearing aid use over the long term, or the short to medium term. No studies of this type investigated adverse effects. There was no evidence of an effect on quality of life over the long term, or short to medium term. These combined interventions reduced hearing handicap in the short to medium term (14 studies, 681 participants; standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.26, 95% CI -0.50 to -0.02). This represents a small-moderate effect size but there is no evidence of a statistically significant effect over the long term. There was evidence of a statistically, but not clinically, significant effect on long-term hearing aid benefit (two studies, 69 participants, MD 0.30, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.58 (1 to 5 scale)), but no evidence of an effect over the short to medium term. There was evidence of a statistically, but not clinically, significant effect on the use of verbal communication strategies in the short term (four studies, 223 participants, MD 0.45, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.74 (0 to 5 scale)), but not the long term. Our confidence in the quality of this evidence was low or very low. We found no studies that assessed the effect of other CCM interventions (decision support, the clinical information system, community resources or health system changes). There is some low to very low quality evidence to support the use of self-management support and complex interventions combining self-management support and delivery system design in adult auditory rehabilitation. However, effect sizes are small. The range of interventions that have been tested is relatively limited. Future research should prioritise: long-term outcome assessment; development of a core outcome set for adult auditory rehabilitation; and study designs and outcome measures that are powered to detect incremental effects of rehabilitative healthcare system changes.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "The evidence is up to date as of June 2016. We found 37 studies involving a total of 4129 people. Most of the people in the studies were aged over 65. There was a mix of new and experienced hearing aid users. Seven studies funded by the United States Veterans Association dominate the evidence. The 1297 people in these studies were serving in the military or military veterans. All but two of the other studies included fewer than 100 people in each study. Thirty-three of the 37 studies looked at ways to help someone to manage their hearing loss and hearing aid(s) better by giving information, practice and experience at listening/communicating or by asking people to practise tasks at home. These are forms of self-management support. Most of these studies also changed how the self-management support was provided, for example by changing the number of appointment sessions or using telephone or email follow-up. Six studies looked at the effect of just changing how the service was delivered. No studies looked at the effect of using guidelines or standards, computerised medical record systems, community resources or changing the health system. We found no evidence that the interventions helped people to wear their hearing aids for more hours per day over the short, medium or long term. One study that used interactive videos to give information after hearing aid fitting encouraged more people to wear their hearing aids. We found no evidence of adverse effects of any of the interventions, but it was rare for studies to look for adverse effects. Giving self-management support meant that people reported less hearing handicap and improved verbal communication over the short term. When this was combined with changing how the support was delivered people also reported slightly more hearing aid benefit over the long term. Only six studies (287 people) looked at how people were doing after a year or more. Complex interventions that deliver self-management support in different ways improve some outcomes for some people with hearing loss who use hearing aids. We found no interventions that increased self-reported daily hours of hearing aid use. Few studies measured how many people use hearing aids compared to how many are fitted (adherence). Many things that might increase daily hours of hearing aid use or encourage more people to wear the hearing aids they have been fitted with have not been tested. It was difficult to combine data across different studies because many outcome measures were used and results were not always fully reported. In future it would be helpful if researchers: - used existing guidelines for presenting their results; - agreed a set of outcome measures for use in this type of study; and - focused on long-term outcomes where people are followed up for at least a year. We judged the evidence to be of very low or low quality. There was risk of bias in the way many of the studies were carried out or reported. The largest studies included only military veterans. We do not know whether studies would find the same results in more mixed populations. Most of the other studies had small sample sizes. Very few studies measured long-term outcomes." } ]	*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 37 studies involving a total of 4129 participants. Risk of bias across the included studies was variable. We judged the GRADE quality of evidence to be very low or low for the primary outcomes where data were available. The majority of participants were over 65 years of age with mild to moderate adult-onset hearing loss. There was a mix of new and experienced hearing aid users. Six of the studies (287 participants) assessed long-term outcomes. All 37 studies tested interventions that could be classified using the CCM as self-management support (ways to help someone to manage their hearing loss and hearing aid(s) better by giving information, practice and experience at listening/communicating or by asking people to practise tasks at home) and/or delivery system design interventions (just changing how the service was delivered). Self-management support interventions We found no studies that investigated the effect of these interventions on adherence, adverse effects or hearing aid benefit. Two studies reported daily hours of hearing aid use but we were unable to combine these in a meta-analysis. There was no evidence of a statistically significant effect on quality of life over the medium term. Self-management support reduced short- to medium-term hearing handicap (two studies, 87 participants; mean difference (MD) -12.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) -23.11 to -2.48 (0 to 100 scale)) and increased the use of verbal communication strategies in the short to medium term (one study, 52 participants; MD 0.72, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.23 (0 to 5 scale)). The clinical significance of these statistical findings is uncertain. It is likely that the outcomes were clinically significant for some, but not all, participants. Our confidence in the quality of this evidence was very low. No self-management support studies reported long-term outcomes. Delivery system design interventions These interventions did not significantly affect adherence or daily hours of hearing aid use in the short to medium term, or adverse effects in the long term. We found no studies that investigated the effect of these interventions on quality of life. There was no evidence of a statistically or clinically significant effect on hearing handicap, hearing aid benefit or the use of verbal communication strategies in the short to medium term. Our confidence in the quality of this evidence was low or very low. Long-term outcome measurement was rare. Combined self-management support/delivery system design interventions One combined intervention showed evidence of a statistically significant effect on adherence in the short term (one study, 167 participants, risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.12). However, there was no evidence of a statistically or clinically significant effect on daily hours of hearing aid use over the long term, or the short to medium term. No studies of this type investigated adverse effects. There was no evidence of an effect on quality of life over the long term, or short to medium term. These combined interventions reduced hearing handicap in the short to medium term (14 studies, 681 participants; standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.26, 95% CI -0.50 to -0.02). This represents a small-moderate effect size but there is no evidence of a statistically significant effect over the long term. There was evidence of a statistically, but not clinically, significant effect on long-term hearing aid benefit (two studies, 69 participants, MD 0.30, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.58 (1 to 5 scale)), but no evidence of an effect over the short to medium term. There was evidence of a statistically, but not clinically, significant effect on the use of verbal communication strategies in the short term (four studies, 223 participants, MD 0.45, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.74 (0 to 5 scale)), but not the long term. Our confidence in the quality of this evidence was low or very low. We found no studies that assessed the effect of other CCM interventions (decision support, the clinical information system, community resources or health system changes). There is some low to very low quality evidence to support the use of self-management support and complex interventions combining self-management support and delivery system design in adult auditory rehabilitation. However, effect sizes are small. The range of interventions that have been tested is relatively limited. Future research should prioritise: long-term outcome assessment; development of a core outcome set for adult auditory rehabilitation; and study designs and outcome measures that are powered to detect incremental effects of rehabilitative healthcare system changes. Output:
CochranePLS3379	[ { "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 17 trials, recruiting 2422 participants, for which outcome data are currently available. Participants tended to be a selected elderly group of stroke survivors with moderate disability. The ESD group showed reductions in the length of hospital stay equivalent to approximately six days (mean difference (MD) -5.5; 95% confidence interval (CI) -3 to -8 days; P < 0.0001; moderate-grade evidence). The primary outcome was available for 16 trials (2359 participants). Overall, the odds ratios (OR) for the outcome of death or dependency at the end of scheduled follow-up (median 6 months; range 3 to 12) was OR 0.80 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.95, P = 0.01, moderate-grade evidence) which equates to five fewer adverse outcomes per 100 patients receiving ESD. The results for death (16 trials; 2116 participants) and death or requiring institutional care (12 trials; 1664 participants) were OR 1.04 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.40, P = 0.81, moderate-grade evidence) and OR 0.75 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.96, P = 0.02, moderate-grade evidence), respectively. Small improvements were also seen in participants' extended activities of daily living scores (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.14, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.25, P = 0.01, low-grade evidence) and satisfaction with services (OR 1.60, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.38, P = 0.02, low-grade evidence). We saw no clear differences in participants' activities of daily living scores, patients subjective health status or mood, or the subjective health status, mood or satisfaction with services of carers. We found low-quality evidence that the risk of readmission to hospital was similar in the ESD and conventional care group (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.51, P = 0.59, low-grade evidence). The evidence for the apparent benefits were weaker at one- and five-year follow-up. Estimated costs from six individual trials ranged from 23% lower to 15% greater for the ESD group in comparison to usual care. In a series of pre-planned analyses, the greatest reductions in death or dependency were seen in the trials evaluating a co-ordinated ESD team with a suggestion of poorer results in those services without a co-ordinated team (subgroup interaction at P = 0.06). Stroke patients with mild to moderate disability at baseline showed greater reductions in death or dependency than those with more severe stroke (subgroup interaction at P = 0.04). Appropriately resourced ESD services with co-ordinated multidisciplinary team input provided for a selected group of stroke patients can reduce long-term dependency and admission to institutional care as well as reducing the length of hospital stay. Results are inconclusive for services without co-ordinated multidisciplinary team input. We observed no adverse impact on the mood or subjective health status of patients or carers, nor on readmission to hospital.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "We identified 17 clinical trials recruiting 2422 stroke patients (searching completed to January 2017). Patients who were recruited tended to have a moderate degree of disability (able to walk with assistance) and be sufficiently well to consider returning home. We categorised services as those based on a multidisciplinary ESD team (with different levels of co-ordination and delivery) and those with no multidisciplinary team co-ordination (no ESD team). The length of initial stay in hospital was reduced by approximately five days for the ESD group. At an average of six months after their stroke ESD patients were more likely to be living at home (an extra five patients living at home for every 100 receiving ESD services; moderate-quality evidence). They were also more likely to be independent in daily activities (an extra six patients independent for every 100 receiving ESD services; moderate-quality evidence). We identified no apparent hazards in terms of patient mood or quality of life, carer mood or quality of life, or the risk of readmission to hospital. The greatest reductions in disability seemed to be present in trials based around a co-ordinated ESD team. When compared with usual care, costs of ESD services ranged from a reduction to a modest increase. The quality of the evidence was downgraded to 'moderate' for the main outcomes of death, discharge home or disability. This was because it was impossible to hide the treating service from participants or healthcare workers. These conclusions were not dependent on trials judged to be lower quality because of poor design or missing data. More information was missing for some of the other outcome measures, which we have downgraded to low-quality evidence. Appropriately resourced ESD services with co-ordinated multidisciplinary team input can reduce disability and the length of time in hospital at least for a selected group of people with stroke. Results are unclear for services that are not based on a co-ordinated multidisciplinary team input. We did not identify any substantial harmful effects." } ]	*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 17 trials, recruiting 2422 participants, for which outcome data are currently available. Participants tended to be a selected elderly group of stroke survivors with moderate disability. The ESD group showed reductions in the length of hospital stay equivalent to approximately six days (mean difference (MD) -5.5; 95% confidence interval (CI) -3 to -8 days; P < 0.0001; moderate-grade evidence). The primary outcome was available for 16 trials (2359 participants). Overall, the odds ratios (OR) for the outcome of death or dependency at the end of scheduled follow-up (median 6 months; range 3 to 12) was OR 0.80 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.95, P = 0.01, moderate-grade evidence) which equates to five fewer adverse outcomes per 100 patients receiving ESD. The results for death (16 trials; 2116 participants) and death or requiring institutional care (12 trials; 1664 participants) were OR 1.04 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.40, P = 0.81, moderate-grade evidence) and OR 0.75 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.96, P = 0.02, moderate-grade evidence), respectively. Small improvements were also seen in participants' extended activities of daily living scores (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.14, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.25, P = 0.01, low-grade evidence) and satisfaction with services (OR 1.60, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.38, P = 0.02, low-grade evidence). We saw no clear differences in participants' activities of daily living scores, patients subjective health status or mood, or the subjective health status, mood or satisfaction with services of carers. We found low-quality evidence that the risk of readmission to hospital was similar in the ESD and conventional care group (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.51, P = 0.59, low-grade evidence). The evidence for the apparent benefits were weaker at one- and five-year follow-up. Estimated costs from six individual trials ranged from 23% lower to 15% greater for the ESD group in comparison to usual care. In a series of pre-planned analyses, the greatest reductions in death or dependency were seen in the trials evaluating a co-ordinated ESD team with a suggestion of poorer results in those services without a co-ordinated team (subgroup interaction at P = 0.06). Stroke patients with mild to moderate disability at baseline showed greater reductions in death or dependency than those with more severe stroke (subgroup interaction at P = 0.04). Appropriately resourced ESD services with co-ordinated multidisciplinary team input provided for a selected group of stroke patients can reduce long-term dependency and admission to institutional care as well as reducing the length of hospital stay. Results are inconclusive for services without co-ordinated multidisciplinary team input. We observed no adverse impact on the mood or subjective health status of patients or carers, nor on readmission to hospital. Output:
CochranePLS969	[ { "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 found only one RCT meeting the selection criteria for the second objective (therapeutic potential) of this review. This study recruited nine participants. It compared the use of gastrografin versus placebo in adult patients with MBO with no indication for further intervention (surgery, endoscopy) apart from standardised conservative management. The overall risk of bias for the study was high due to issues with low numbers of participants, selective reporting of outcomes and a high attrition rate for the intervention arm. Primary outcomes The included trial was a pilot study whose primary outcome was to test the feasibility for a large study. The authors reported specifically on the number of patients screened, the number recruited and reasons for exclusion; this was not the focus of our review. Due to the low number of participants, the authors of the study decided not to report on our primary outcome of assessing the ability of OWSC to predict the likelihood of malignant small bowel obstruction resolving with conservative treatment alone (diagnostic effect). It also did not report on our primary outcome of rate of resolution of MBO in patients receiving OWSC compared with those not receiving it (therapeutic effect). The study reported that no issues regarding safety or tolerability of either gastrografin or placebo were identified. The overall quality of the evidence for the incidence of adverse events with OWSC was very low, downgraded twice for serious limitations to study quality (high risk of selective reporting and attrition bias) and downgraded once for imprecision (sparse data). Secondary outcomes The study planned to report on this review’s secondary outcome measures of length of hospital stay and time from administration of OWSC to resolution of MBO. However the authors of the study decided not to do so due to the low numbers of patients recruited. The study did not report on our secondary outcome measure of survival times from onset of inoperable MBO until death. There is insufficient evidence from RCTs to determine the place of OWSC in predicting which patients with inoperable MBO will respond with conservative treatment alone. There is also insufficient evidence from RCTs to determine the therapeutic effects and safety of OWSC in patients with malignant small bowel obstruction.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "We searched for evidence that OWSC could be used to identify which patients with inoperable MBO would recover with conservative management. We also wanted to know if OWSC increased the likelihood of recovery from MBO, reduced hospital stay or improved prognosis. Finally, we wished to know what side effects OWSC might cause for patients with MBO. We conducted the search in June 2017 and found one study. It only recruited nine participants and did not fully report on the outcomes of using OWSC in MBO. We found insufficient evidence that OWSC can identify which patients with MBO will recover with conservative management. We found insufficient evidence that patients with MBO benefit from OWSC in terms of length of hospital stay, recovery time or survival. No conclusions could be made about side effects from OWSC. 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 rated the quality of the evidence as very low due to the lack of studies reporting on the benefits of using OWSC in MBO and the only study we found reporting on side effects recruited very few participants (nine). The low quality of the evidence means that we are very uncertain about the use of OWSC in the management of MBO and cannot confirm its benefits or harms in patients with this condition." } ]	*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 found only one RCT meeting the selection criteria for the second objective (therapeutic potential) of this review. This study recruited nine participants. It compared the use of gastrografin versus placebo in adult patients with MBO with no indication for further intervention (surgery, endoscopy) apart from standardised conservative management. The overall risk of bias for the study was high due to issues with low numbers of participants, selective reporting of outcomes and a high attrition rate for the intervention arm. Primary outcomes The included trial was a pilot study whose primary outcome was to test the feasibility for a large study. The authors reported specifically on the number of patients screened, the number recruited and reasons for exclusion; this was not the focus of our review. Due to the low number of participants, the authors of the study decided not to report on our primary outcome of assessing the ability of OWSC to predict the likelihood of malignant small bowel obstruction resolving with conservative treatment alone (diagnostic effect). It also did not report on our primary outcome of rate of resolution of MBO in patients receiving OWSC compared with those not receiving it (therapeutic effect). The study reported that no issues regarding safety or tolerability of either gastrografin or placebo were identified. The overall quality of the evidence for the incidence of adverse events with OWSC was very low, downgraded twice for serious limitations to study quality (high risk of selective reporting and attrition bias) and downgraded once for imprecision (sparse data). Secondary outcomes The study planned to report on this review’s secondary outcome measures of length of hospital stay and time from administration of OWSC to resolution of MBO. However the authors of the study decided not to do so due to the low numbers of patients recruited. The study did not report on our secondary outcome measure of survival times from onset of inoperable MBO until death. There is insufficient evidence from RCTs to determine the place of OWSC in predicting which patients with inoperable MBO will respond with conservative treatment alone. There is also insufficient evidence from RCTs to determine the therapeutic effects and safety of OWSC in patients with malignant small bowel obstruction. Output:
CochranePLS1964	[ { "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 randomised controlled trials involving 2270 women from high-income countries were eligible for inclusion in the review. Outcomes were reported for 1280 infants in one study. The interventions assessed in the trials were designed to be used either independently by women or mediated through the involvement of independent support. No studies looked at shared decision supports, that is, interventions designed to facilitate shared decision-making with health professionals during clinical encounters. We found no difference in planned mode of birth: VBAC (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.10; I² = 0%) or caesarean birth (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.10; I² = 0%). The proportion of women unsure about preference did not change (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.20; I² = 0%). There was no difference in adverse outcomes reported between intervention and control groups (one trial, 1275 women/1280 babies): permanent (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.36); severe (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.36); unclear (0.66, 95% CI 0.27, 1.61). Overall, 64.8% of those indicating preference for VBAC achieved it, while 97.1% of those planning caesarean birth achieved this mode of birth. We found no difference in the proportion of women achieving congruence between preferred and actual mode of birth (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.07) (three trials, 1921 women). More women had caesarean births (57.3%), including 535 women where it was unplanned (42.6% all caesarean deliveries and 24.4% all births). We found no difference in actual mode of birth between groups, (average RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.06) (three trials, 2190 women). Decisional conflict about preferred mode of birth was lower (less uncertainty) for women with decisional support (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.25, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.02; two trials, 787 women; I² = 48%). There was also a significant increase in knowledge among women with decision support compared with those in the control group (SMD 0.74, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.03; two trials, 787 women; I² = 65%). However, there was considerable heterogeneity between the two studies contributing to this outcome ( I² = 65%) and attrition was greater than 15 per cent and the evidence for this outcome is considered to be moderate quality only. There was no difference in satisfaction between women with decision support and those without it (SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.20; two trials, 797 women; I² = 0%). No study assessed decisional regret or whether women's information needs were met. Qualitative data gathered in interviews with women and health professionals provided information about acceptability of the decision support and its feasibility of implementation. While women liked the decision support there was concern among health professionals about their impact on their time and workload. Evidence is limited to independent and mediated decision supports. Research is needed on shared decision support interventions for women considering mode of birth in a pregnancy after a caesarean birth to use with their care providers.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "We found three studies (involving 2270 women), all from high-income countries, that were suitable for this review. The studies looked at the effectiveness of decision support tools designed to be used either independently by women or mediated through the involvement of someone not associated with their care support. No studies looked at shared decision support tools that were intended to help with shared decision making with the pregnant women and their health professionals during pregnancy care visits. We found that the use of these decision support tools made no difference to the type of birth women planned, how women actually gave birth, or in the number of women and babies who experienced harm, although only one study reported harms. There was also no difference in the proportion of women who were unsure about what they wanted. Overall, nearly 65% of women who wanted a VBAC achieved it, while almost all women wanting a caesarean birth had one (97%). We found no difference in the proportion of women who achieved their preferred mode of birth. However, women who used decisional support interventions had less uncertainty about their decision than those that did not use them. Research is needed on the effectiveness of decision support interventions designed to be shared between women and the health professionals caring for them in pregnancy after a caesarean birth." } ]	*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 randomised controlled trials involving 2270 women from high-income countries were eligible for inclusion in the review. Outcomes were reported for 1280 infants in one study. The interventions assessed in the trials were designed to be used either independently by women or mediated through the involvement of independent support. No studies looked at shared decision supports, that is, interventions designed to facilitate shared decision-making with health professionals during clinical encounters. We found no difference in planned mode of birth: VBAC (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.10; I² = 0%) or caesarean birth (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.10; I² = 0%). The proportion of women unsure about preference did not change (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.20; I² = 0%). There was no difference in adverse outcomes reported between intervention and control groups (one trial, 1275 women/1280 babies): permanent (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.36); severe (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.36); unclear (0.66, 95% CI 0.27, 1.61). Overall, 64.8% of those indicating preference for VBAC achieved it, while 97.1% of those planning caesarean birth achieved this mode of birth. We found no difference in the proportion of women achieving congruence between preferred and actual mode of birth (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.07) (three trials, 1921 women). More women had caesarean births (57.3%), including 535 women where it was unplanned (42.6% all caesarean deliveries and 24.4% all births). We found no difference in actual mode of birth between groups, (average RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.06) (three trials, 2190 women). Decisional conflict about preferred mode of birth was lower (less uncertainty) for women with decisional support (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.25, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.02; two trials, 787 women; I² = 48%). There was also a significant increase in knowledge among women with decision support compared with those in the control group (SMD 0.74, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.03; two trials, 787 women; I² = 65%). However, there was considerable heterogeneity between the two studies contributing to this outcome ( I² = 65%) and attrition was greater than 15 per cent and the evidence for this outcome is considered to be moderate quality only. There was no difference in satisfaction between women with decision support and those without it (SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.20; two trials, 797 women; I² = 0%). No study assessed decisional regret or whether women's information needs were met. Qualitative data gathered in interviews with women and health professionals provided information about acceptability of the decision support and its feasibility of implementation. While women liked the decision support there was concern among health professionals about their impact on their time and workload. Evidence is limited to independent and mediated decision supports. Research is needed on shared decision support interventions for women considering mode of birth in a pregnancy after a caesarean birth to use with their care providers. Output:
CochranePLS925	[ { "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 one RCT (56 eyes of 55 participants) in this review. The study compared two types of topical biguanides for the treatment of AK: chlorhexidine 0.02% and polyhexamethylene biguanide (PHMB) 0.02%. All participants were contact lens wearers with a median age of 31 years. Treatment duration ranged from 51 to 145 days. The study, conducted in the UK, was well-designed and had low risk of bias overall. Outcome data were available for 51 (91%) of 56 eyes. Follow-up times for outcome measurements in the study were not reported. Resolution of infection, defined as control of ocular inflammation, relief of pain and photosensitivity, and recovery of vision, was 86% in the chlorhexidine group compared with 78% in the PHMB group (relative risk (RR) 1.10, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.84 to 1.42). In the chlorhexidine group, 20 of 28 eyes (71%) had better visual acuity compared with 13 of 23 eyes (57%) in the PHMB group at final follow-up (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.94). Five participants required therapeutic keratoplasty: 2 in the chlorhexidine group compared with 3 in the PHMB group (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.10 to 3.00). No serious adverse event related to drug toxicity was observed in the study. There is insufficient evidence to evaluate the relative effectiveness and safety of medical therapy for the treatment of AK. Results from the one included study yielded no difference with respect to outcomes reported between chlorhexidine and PHMB. However, the sample size was inadequate to detect clinically meaningful differences between the two groups as indicated by the wide confidence intervals of effect estimates.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "We found one eligible study of 55 participants from the UK. All participants in the study had a history of contact lens wear. The study randomly assigned people with AK to one of two medical treatment options: chlorhexidine eye drops or polyhexamethylene biguanide (PHMB) eye drops. Participants in the study were treated for 51 to 145 days. In the one study identified, similar results were seen between the chlorhexidine and PHMB groups in terms of resolution of infection, changes in vision, or need for surgery. However, the number of participants in the study was small and the results uncertain; thus, we cannot be confident that there are really no differences between these treatments. No serious side effect was observed with either treatment in the study. Although the study was well-designed with no suggestion of bias, the results must be interpreted carefully because of the small number of participants." } ]	*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 one RCT (56 eyes of 55 participants) in this review. The study compared two types of topical biguanides for the treatment of AK: chlorhexidine 0.02% and polyhexamethylene biguanide (PHMB) 0.02%. All participants were contact lens wearers with a median age of 31 years. Treatment duration ranged from 51 to 145 days. The study, conducted in the UK, was well-designed and had low risk of bias overall. Outcome data were available for 51 (91%) of 56 eyes. Follow-up times for outcome measurements in the study were not reported. Resolution of infection, defined as control of ocular inflammation, relief of pain and photosensitivity, and recovery of vision, was 86% in the chlorhexidine group compared with 78% in the PHMB group (relative risk (RR) 1.10, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.84 to 1.42). In the chlorhexidine group, 20 of 28 eyes (71%) had better visual acuity compared with 13 of 23 eyes (57%) in the PHMB group at final follow-up (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.94). Five participants required therapeutic keratoplasty: 2 in the chlorhexidine group compared with 3 in the PHMB group (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.10 to 3.00). No serious adverse event related to drug toxicity was observed in the study. There is insufficient evidence to evaluate the relative effectiveness and safety of medical therapy for the treatment of AK. Results from the one included study yielded no difference with respect to outcomes reported between chlorhexidine and PHMB. However, the sample size was inadequate to detect clinically meaningful differences between the two groups as indicated by the wide confidence intervals of effect estimates. Output:
CochranePLS902	[ { "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 updated review included data from 72 studies, comprising a total of 4378 participants. Of these, 2291 received some form of treatment and 2087 acted as controls. The interventions consisted most often of different pharmaceutical agents, such as dopamine and its analogues, diuretics, calcium channel blockers, ACE inhibitors, NAC, ANP, sodium bicarbonate, antioxidants and EPO or selected hydration fluids. Some clinical heterogeneity and varying risk of bias were noted amongst the studies, although we were able to meaningfully interpret the data. Results showed significant heterogeneity and indicated that most interventions provided no benefit. Data on perioperative mortality were reported in 41 studies and data on acute renal injury in 44 studies (all interventions combined). Because of considerable clinical heterogeneity (different clinical scenarios, as well as considerable methodological variability amongst the studies), we did not perform a meta-analysis on the combined data. Subgroup analysis of major interventions and surgical procedures showed no significant influence of interventions on reported mortality and acute renal injury. For the subgroup of participants who had pre-existing renal damage, the risk of mortality from 10 trials (959 participants) was estimated as odds ratio (OR) 0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 1.52; the risk of acute renal injury (as reported in the trials) was estimated from 11 trials (979 participants) as OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.80. Subgroup analysis of studies that were rated as having low risk of bias revealed that 19 studies reported mortality numbers (1604 participants); OR was 1.01, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.90. Fifteen studies reported data on acute renal injury (criteria chosen by the individual studies; 1600 participants); OR was 1.03, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.97. No reliable evidence from the available literature suggests that interventions during surgery can protect the kidneys from damage. However, the criteria used to diagnose acute renal damage varied in many of the older studies selected for inclusion in this review, many of which suffered from poor methodological quality such as insufficient participant numbers and poor definitions of end points such as acute renal failure and acute renal injury. Recent methods of detecting renal damage such as the use of specific biomarkers and better defined criteria for identifying renal damage (RIFLE (risk, injury, failure, loss of kidney function and end-stage renal failure) or AKI (acute kidney injury)) may have to be explored further to determine any possible benefit derived from interventions used to protect the kidneys during the perioperative period.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "No clear evidence from available RCTs suggests that any of the measures used to protect the kidneys during the perioperative period are beneficial. These findings held true in 14 studies of patients with pre-existing renal damage and in 24 studies that were considered of good methodological quality. The primary outcomes of these studies were mortality and acute renal injury. Reported mortality in studies with low risk of bias was not different between intervention and control groups (odds ratio (OR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52 to 1.97) or for acute renal injury (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.03). The summary of findings revealed a similar picture. So we conclude that evidence suggests that none of the interventions used currently are helpful in protecting the kidneys during the perioperative period, nor do they cause increased harm." } ]	*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 updated review included data from 72 studies, comprising a total of 4378 participants. Of these, 2291 received some form of treatment and 2087 acted as controls. The interventions consisted most often of different pharmaceutical agents, such as dopamine and its analogues, diuretics, calcium channel blockers, ACE inhibitors, NAC, ANP, sodium bicarbonate, antioxidants and EPO or selected hydration fluids. Some clinical heterogeneity and varying risk of bias were noted amongst the studies, although we were able to meaningfully interpret the data. Results showed significant heterogeneity and indicated that most interventions provided no benefit. Data on perioperative mortality were reported in 41 studies and data on acute renal injury in 44 studies (all interventions combined). Because of considerable clinical heterogeneity (different clinical scenarios, as well as considerable methodological variability amongst the studies), we did not perform a meta-analysis on the combined data. Subgroup analysis of major interventions and surgical procedures showed no significant influence of interventions on reported mortality and acute renal injury. For the subgroup of participants who had pre-existing renal damage, the risk of mortality from 10 trials (959 participants) was estimated as odds ratio (OR) 0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 1.52; the risk of acute renal injury (as reported in the trials) was estimated from 11 trials (979 participants) as OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.80. Subgroup analysis of studies that were rated as having low risk of bias revealed that 19 studies reported mortality numbers (1604 participants); OR was 1.01, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.90. Fifteen studies reported data on acute renal injury (criteria chosen by the individual studies; 1600 participants); OR was 1.03, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.97. No reliable evidence from the available literature suggests that interventions during surgery can protect the kidneys from damage. However, the criteria used to diagnose acute renal damage varied in many of the older studies selected for inclusion in this review, many of which suffered from poor methodological quality such as insufficient participant numbers and poor definitions of end points such as acute renal failure and acute renal injury. Recent methods of detecting renal damage such as the use of specific biomarkers and better defined criteria for identifying renal damage (RIFLE (risk, injury, failure, loss of kidney function and end-stage renal failure) or AKI (acute kidney injury)) may have to be explored further to determine any possible benefit derived from interventions used to protect the kidneys during the perioperative period. Output:
CochranePLS526	[ { "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 met the review entry criteria (5537 adults). Study populations entered the studies having previously been treated with inhaled steroids and had moderate or mild airway obstruction (mean FEV1 predicted between 65% and 84% at baseline). Most of the studies assessed treatment over a period of six months. The studies were at a low risk of selection and performance/detection bias, although we could not determine whether missing data had an impact on the results. Availablility of outcome data was satisfactory. Primary outcomes The odds ratio for exacerbations requiring oral steroids was lower with fluticasone/salmeterol but did not reach statistical significance (OR 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 1.07, four studies, N = 4949). With an assumed risk with budesonide/formoterol of 106/1000 participants requiring oral steroids, treatment with fluticasone/salmeterol would lead to between 25 fewer and seven more people per 1000 experiencing a course of oral steroids. Although the odds of hospital admission was higher with fluticasone/salmeterol, this did not reach statistical significance (OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.47, four studies, 4879 participants). With an assumed risk in the budesonide/formoterol of 7/1000, between three fewer and nine more people per 1000 would be hospitalised on fluticasone/salmeterol. The odds of a serious adverse event related to asthma was higher with fluticasone/salmeterol but did not differ significantly between treatments (OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.86, three studies, 4054 participants). With an assumed risk in the budesonide/formoterol of 7/1000, between two fewer and 13 more people per 1000 would experience a serious adverse event on fluticasone/salmeterol. Secondary outcomes Lung function outcomes, symptoms, rescue medication, composite of exacerbations leading to either emergency department visit or hospital admission, withdrawals and adverse events did not differ statistically between treatments. Assessment of quality of life was limited to two studies, both of which gave results that did not reach statistical significance. One study reported one death out of 1000 participants on fluticasone/salmeterol and no deaths in a similar number of participants treated with budesonide/formoterol. No deaths were reported in the other studies. Statistical imprecision in the effect estimates for exacerbations and serious adverse events do not enable us to conclude that either therapy is superior. The uncertainty around the effect estimates justify further trials to provide more definitive conclusions; the overall quality of evidence based on GRADE recommendations for the three primary outcomes and withdrawals due to serious adverse events was moderate. We rated the quality of evidence for mortality to be low. Results for lung function outcomes showed that the drugs were sufficiently similar that further research is unlikely to change the effects. No trials were identified in the under-12s and research in this population is a high priority. Evaluation of quality of life is a priority for future research.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "This systematic review examined randomised controlled trials comparing two commonly available combinations administered at a fixed dose through a single inhaler, fluticasone/salmeterol and budesonide/formoterol. We included five studies which recruited 5537 people. The trials were generally well designed but only recruited adults and adolescents and not children. Participants were already taking regular inhaled steroids before the studies commenced and had mild or moderate asthma based on tests of their airway. We found that the number of people who required treatment with oral steroids and admission to hospital was similar between the treatments, but due to the statistical uncertainty of this result we could not rule out important differences in favour of either drug combination. Additional trials would enable us to draw more reliable conclusions about how well these drugs work compared with each other. We also looked at serious adverse events. Again, the results did not indicate that one combination was clearly better than the other, but again these results were imprecise so we cannot be certain. However, lung function and rescue medication use were similar between the treatments. We could not assess the relative effects of these drugs on mortality because there were so few deaths which leads to statistical uncertainty; out of the five studies, one person died. Quality of life was measured in different ways in two studies and we could not determine how the treatments compared in this respect. Further studies are needed to strengthen and better explain these findings. In particular studies which assess the effects of these therapies in children and studies which measure quality of life are a priority." } ]	*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 met the review entry criteria (5537 adults). Study populations entered the studies having previously been treated with inhaled steroids and had moderate or mild airway obstruction (mean FEV1 predicted between 65% and 84% at baseline). Most of the studies assessed treatment over a period of six months. The studies were at a low risk of selection and performance/detection bias, although we could not determine whether missing data had an impact on the results. Availablility of outcome data was satisfactory. Primary outcomes The odds ratio for exacerbations requiring oral steroids was lower with fluticasone/salmeterol but did not reach statistical significance (OR 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 1.07, four studies, N = 4949). With an assumed risk with budesonide/formoterol of 106/1000 participants requiring oral steroids, treatment with fluticasone/salmeterol would lead to between 25 fewer and seven more people per 1000 experiencing a course of oral steroids. Although the odds of hospital admission was higher with fluticasone/salmeterol, this did not reach statistical significance (OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.47, four studies, 4879 participants). With an assumed risk in the budesonide/formoterol of 7/1000, between three fewer and nine more people per 1000 would be hospitalised on fluticasone/salmeterol. The odds of a serious adverse event related to asthma was higher with fluticasone/salmeterol but did not differ significantly between treatments (OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.86, three studies, 4054 participants). With an assumed risk in the budesonide/formoterol of 7/1000, between two fewer and 13 more people per 1000 would experience a serious adverse event on fluticasone/salmeterol. Secondary outcomes Lung function outcomes, symptoms, rescue medication, composite of exacerbations leading to either emergency department visit or hospital admission, withdrawals and adverse events did not differ statistically between treatments. Assessment of quality of life was limited to two studies, both of which gave results that did not reach statistical significance. One study reported one death out of 1000 participants on fluticasone/salmeterol and no deaths in a similar number of participants treated with budesonide/formoterol. No deaths were reported in the other studies. Statistical imprecision in the effect estimates for exacerbations and serious adverse events do not enable us to conclude that either therapy is superior. The uncertainty around the effect estimates justify further trials to provide more definitive conclusions; the overall quality of evidence based on GRADE recommendations for the three primary outcomes and withdrawals due to serious adverse events was moderate. We rated the quality of evidence for mortality to be low. Results for lung function outcomes showed that the drugs were sufficiently similar that further research is unlikely to change the effects. No trials were identified in the under-12s and research in this population is a high priority. Evaluation of quality of life is a priority for future research. Output:
CochranePLS2778	[ { "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: Of the 12 RCTs included, the effect of patient education on primary end points was reported in only five. Pooling of outcome data was precluded by marked, mainly clinical, heterogeneity. One of the RCTs showed reduced incidence of foot ulceration (risk ratio (RR) 0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.66) and amputation (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.76) during one-year follow-up of diabetes patients at high risk of foot ulceration after a one-hour group education session. However, one similar study, with lower risk of bias, did not confirm this finding (RR amputation 0.98, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.34; RR ulceration 1.00, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.44). Three other studies, also did not demonstrate any effect of education on the primary end points, but were most likely underpowered. Patients' foot care knowledge was improved in the short term in five of eight RCTs in which this outcome was assessed, as was patients' self-reported self-care behaviour in the short term in seven of nine RCTs. Callus, nail problems and fungal infections improved in only one of five RCTs. Only one of the included RCTs was at low risk of bias. In some trials, foot care knowledge and self reported patient behaviour seem to be positively influenced by education in the short term. Yet, based on the only two sufficiently powered studies reporting the effect of patient education on primary end points, we conclude that there is insufficient robust evidence that limited patient education alone is effective in achieving clinically relevant reductions in ulcer and amputation incidence.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "Foot ulcers not only lead to physical disability and loss of quality of life but also to economic burden (healthcare costs, industrial disability). The aim is therefore to prevent foot ulcers occurring. This review of high-level studies found that educating people with diabetes about the need to look after their feet seems to improve people's foot care knowledge and behaviour in the short term. There is insufficient evidence that education alone, without any additional preventive measures, will effectively reduce the occurrence of ulcers and amputations." } ]	*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: Of the 12 RCTs included, the effect of patient education on primary end points was reported in only five. Pooling of outcome data was precluded by marked, mainly clinical, heterogeneity. One of the RCTs showed reduced incidence of foot ulceration (risk ratio (RR) 0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.66) and amputation (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.76) during one-year follow-up of diabetes patients at high risk of foot ulceration after a one-hour group education session. However, one similar study, with lower risk of bias, did not confirm this finding (RR amputation 0.98, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.34; RR ulceration 1.00, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.44). Three other studies, also did not demonstrate any effect of education on the primary end points, but were most likely underpowered. Patients' foot care knowledge was improved in the short term in five of eight RCTs in which this outcome was assessed, as was patients' self-reported self-care behaviour in the short term in seven of nine RCTs. Callus, nail problems and fungal infections improved in only one of five RCTs. Only one of the included RCTs was at low risk of bias. In some trials, foot care knowledge and self reported patient behaviour seem to be positively influenced by education in the short term. Yet, based on the only two sufficiently powered studies reporting the effect of patient education on primary end points, we conclude that there is insufficient robust evidence that limited patient education alone is effective in achieving clinically relevant reductions in ulcer and amputation incidence. Output:
CochranePLS1139	[ { "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 three randomised trials (N = 366) in this review. Two of these studies were at high risk of bias. All studies reported on prevention of ROP and compared oral propranolol with placebo or no treatment. We found no trials assessing beta-blockers in infants with established stage 2 or higher ROP with plus disease. In one trial, study medication was started after one week of life, i.e. prior to the first ROP screening. The other two trials included preterm infants if they had stage 2 or lower ROP without plus disease. Based on the GRADE assessment, we considered evidence to be of low quality for the following outcomes: rescue treatment with anti-VEGF or laser therapy; and arterial hypotension or bradycardia requiring inotropic support. Evidence was of moderate quality for the following outcomes: progression to stage 2 with plus disease; progression to stage 3 ROP; and progression to stage 4 or 5 ROP. Meta-analysis of three trials (N = 366) suggested beneficial effects of oral beta-blockers on the risk of requiring anti-VEGF agents (typical risk ratio (RR) 0.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12 to 0.86; I² = 0%; typical risk difference (RD) −0.06, 95% CI −0.10 to −0.01; I² = 75%; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 18, 95% CI 14 to 84) and laser therapy (typical RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.89; typical RD −0.09, 95% CI −0.16 to −0.02; I² = 31%; NNTB 12, 95% CI 8 to 47). Meta-analysis of two trials (N = 161) demonstrated a beneficial effect of oral beta-blockers on progression to stage 3 ROP (typical RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.96; I² = 0%; typical RD −0.15, 95% CI −0.28 to −0.02; I² = 73%; NNTB 7, 95% CI 5 to 67). There was no significant effect of oral beta-blockers on progression to stage 2 ROP with plus disease or to stage 4 or 5 ROP. Although meta-analysis did not indicate a significant effect of beta-blockers on arterial hypotension or bradycardia, propranolol dosage in one study was reduced by 50% in infants of less than 26 weeks' gestational age due to severe hypotension, bradycardia, and apnoea in several participants. Analyses did not indicate significant effects of beta-blockers on complications of prematurity or mortality. None of the trials reported on long-term visual impairment. Limited evidence of low-to-moderate quality suggests that prophylactic administration of oral beta-blockers might reduce progression towards stage 3 ROP and decrease the need for anti-VEGF agents or laser therapy. The clinical relevance of those findings is unclear as no data on long-term visual impairment were reported. Adverse events attributed to oral propranolol at a dose of 2 mg/kg/d raise concerns regarding systemic administration of this drug for prevention of ROP at the given dose. There is insufficient evidence to determine the efficacy and safety of beta-blockers for prevention of ROP due to high risk of bias in two included trials and the lack of long-term functional outcomes. We would encourage researchers to conduct large, well-designed trials to confirm or refute the role of beta-blockers for prevention and treatment of ROP in preterm infants. Trials should report on long-term visual impairment. Researchers should consider dose-finding studies of systemic beta-blockers and topical administration of beta-blockers, in order to optimise drug delivery and minimise adverse events.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "We examined the research published to 7 August 2017. We found three clinical trials recruiting 366 preterm babies. All three studies reported on preventing severe stages of retinopathy. We found that orally administered beta-blockers may offer short-term benefits such as lower risk of progression to a more severe stage of retinopathy and less need for additional treatment. However, there were no data on long-term vision; and studies did not show an effect of beta-blockers on the most severe stages of retinopathy. On the other hand, serious adverse effects of beta-blockers were reported in one of three studies. The overall quality of evidence for outcomes in this review varied from low to moderate. Thus, our confidence in the results of this review is very limited. We cannot recommend routine use of beta-blockers for prevention or treatment of ROP in preterm infants. Future high-quality studies are necessary to determine whether benefits of beta-blockers outweigh their risks in preventing or treating ROP in preterm infants." } ]	*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 three randomised trials (N = 366) in this review. Two of these studies were at high risk of bias. All studies reported on prevention of ROP and compared oral propranolol with placebo or no treatment. We found no trials assessing beta-blockers in infants with established stage 2 or higher ROP with plus disease. In one trial, study medication was started after one week of life, i.e. prior to the first ROP screening. The other two trials included preterm infants if they had stage 2 or lower ROP without plus disease. Based on the GRADE assessment, we considered evidence to be of low quality for the following outcomes: rescue treatment with anti-VEGF or laser therapy; and arterial hypotension or bradycardia requiring inotropic support. Evidence was of moderate quality for the following outcomes: progression to stage 2 with plus disease; progression to stage 3 ROP; and progression to stage 4 or 5 ROP. Meta-analysis of three trials (N = 366) suggested beneficial effects of oral beta-blockers on the risk of requiring anti-VEGF agents (typical risk ratio (RR) 0.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12 to 0.86; I² = 0%; typical risk difference (RD) −0.06, 95% CI −0.10 to −0.01; I² = 75%; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 18, 95% CI 14 to 84) and laser therapy (typical RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.89; typical RD −0.09, 95% CI −0.16 to −0.02; I² = 31%; NNTB 12, 95% CI 8 to 47). Meta-analysis of two trials (N = 161) demonstrated a beneficial effect of oral beta-blockers on progression to stage 3 ROP (typical RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.96; I² = 0%; typical RD −0.15, 95% CI −0.28 to −0.02; I² = 73%; NNTB 7, 95% CI 5 to 67). There was no significant effect of oral beta-blockers on progression to stage 2 ROP with plus disease or to stage 4 or 5 ROP. Although meta-analysis did not indicate a significant effect of beta-blockers on arterial hypotension or bradycardia, propranolol dosage in one study was reduced by 50% in infants of less than 26 weeks' gestational age due to severe hypotension, bradycardia, and apnoea in several participants. Analyses did not indicate significant effects of beta-blockers on complications of prematurity or mortality. None of the trials reported on long-term visual impairment. Limited evidence of low-to-moderate quality suggests that prophylactic administration of oral beta-blockers might reduce progression towards stage 3 ROP and decrease the need for anti-VEGF agents or laser therapy. The clinical relevance of those findings is unclear as no data on long-term visual impairment were reported. Adverse events attributed to oral propranolol at a dose of 2 mg/kg/d raise concerns regarding systemic administration of this drug for prevention of ROP at the given dose. There is insufficient evidence to determine the efficacy and safety of beta-blockers for prevention of ROP due to high risk of bias in two included trials and the lack of long-term functional outcomes. We would encourage researchers to conduct large, well-designed trials to confirm or refute the role of beta-blockers for prevention and treatment of ROP in preterm infants. Trials should report on long-term visual impairment. Researchers should consider dose-finding studies of systemic beta-blockers and topical administration of beta-blockers, in order to optimise drug delivery and minimise adverse events. Output:
CochranePLS1693	[ { "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: Ten studies (786 patients) were included. Mupirocin ointment reduced the risk of catheter-related bacteraemia (RR 0.17, 95%CI 0.07 to 0.43) and had a significant effect on catheter-related infections caused by S. aureus. The risk of catheter-related bacteraemia was reduced by polysporin (RR 0.40, 95%CI 0.19 to 0.86) and povidone-iodine ointment (RR 0.10, 95%CI 0.01 to 0.72). Subgroup analysis suggested mupirocin (RR 0.12, 95%CI 0.01 to 2.13) and povidone-iodine ointment (RR 0.84, 95%CI 0.24 to 2.98) had no effect on all-cause mortality while polysporin ointment showed a significant reduction (RR 0.22, 95%CI 0.07 to 0.74). Mortality related to infection was not reduced by mupirocin, polysporin or povidone-iodine ointment. Topical honey did not reduce the risk of exit site infection (RR 0.45, 95%CI 0.10 to 2.11) or catheter-related bacteraemia (RR 0.80, 95%CI 0.37 to 1.73). Transparent polyurethane dressing compared to dry gauze dressing did not reduce the risk of CVC or exit site infection, or catheter-related bacteraemia. Mupirocin ointment appears effective in reducing the risk of catheter-related bacteraemia. Insufficient reporting on mupirocin resistance was noted and needs to be considered in future studies. A lack of high quality data on the routine use of povidone-iodine ointment, polysporin ointment and topical honey warrant larger RCTs. Insufficient data were available to determine which dressing type (transparent polyurethane or dry gauze dressing) has the lowest risk of catheter-related infections.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "The review of 10 studies (786 patients) found that mupirocin ointment reduced the risk of patients developing catheter-related bacteraemia (bacteria in the blood). However, monitoring of mupirocin resistance needs to be considered in future studies. There was not enough evidence to determine which ointment (povidone-iodine and polysporin) or dressing was the best in preventing infection. There was also insufficient evidence to support the use of medicinal honey for the prevention of infection." } ]	*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: Ten studies (786 patients) were included. Mupirocin ointment reduced the risk of catheter-related bacteraemia (RR 0.17, 95%CI 0.07 to 0.43) and had a significant effect on catheter-related infections caused by S. aureus. The risk of catheter-related bacteraemia was reduced by polysporin (RR 0.40, 95%CI 0.19 to 0.86) and povidone-iodine ointment (RR 0.10, 95%CI 0.01 to 0.72). Subgroup analysis suggested mupirocin (RR 0.12, 95%CI 0.01 to 2.13) and povidone-iodine ointment (RR 0.84, 95%CI 0.24 to 2.98) had no effect on all-cause mortality while polysporin ointment showed a significant reduction (RR 0.22, 95%CI 0.07 to 0.74). Mortality related to infection was not reduced by mupirocin, polysporin or povidone-iodine ointment. Topical honey did not reduce the risk of exit site infection (RR 0.45, 95%CI 0.10 to 2.11) or catheter-related bacteraemia (RR 0.80, 95%CI 0.37 to 1.73). Transparent polyurethane dressing compared to dry gauze dressing did not reduce the risk of CVC or exit site infection, or catheter-related bacteraemia. Mupirocin ointment appears effective in reducing the risk of catheter-related bacteraemia. Insufficient reporting on mupirocin resistance was noted and needs to be considered in future studies. A lack of high quality data on the routine use of povidone-iodine ointment, polysporin ointment and topical honey warrant larger RCTs. Insufficient data were available to determine which dressing type (transparent polyurethane or dry gauze dressing) has the lowest risk of catheter-related infections. Output:
CochranePLS2251	[ { "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 two studies, involving 319 women. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in either of the primary outcomes of caesarean section (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42 to 2.12) or instrumental delivery (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.08). Similarly, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in any of the secondary outcomes for which data were available. This included Apgar score less than seven at five minutes (RR 3.06, 0.13 to 73.33), admission to neonatal intensive care unit (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.29 to 3.93), uterine hyperstimulation (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.80) and postpartum haemorrhage (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.58, 1.59). There was no statistically significant difference identified between women in spontaneous labour with epidural analgesia who were augmented with oxytocin, compared with those who received placebo. However, due to the limited number of women included in the studies, further research in the form of randomised controlled trials are required.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "Data were collected from two randomised studies (involving 319 women) which compared women with epidurals who were given either oxytocin, or a placebo. The rates of operative deliveries were not clearly different between the two groups There were also no significant differences between the other outcomes analysed, such as the Apgar scores of the newborn babies, admissions to the neonatal nursery, rates of post birth haemorrhage or rates of over stimulation of the uterus. Both studies appeared to have a low risk of bias. Overall, there was no significant difference between the rates of operative deliveries in women with epidurals who were given oxytocin compared with those who received the placebo. However, as there were limited data available, in order to fully determine whether augmentation of women with epidurals reduces the rate of operative deliveries and therefore reduces the complications associated, further studies are required." } ]	*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 two studies, involving 319 women. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in either of the primary outcomes of caesarean section (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42 to 2.12) or instrumental delivery (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.08). Similarly, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in any of the secondary outcomes for which data were available. This included Apgar score less than seven at five minutes (RR 3.06, 0.13 to 73.33), admission to neonatal intensive care unit (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.29 to 3.93), uterine hyperstimulation (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.80) and postpartum haemorrhage (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.58, 1.59). There was no statistically significant difference identified between women in spontaneous labour with epidural analgesia who were augmented with oxytocin, compared with those who received placebo. However, due to the limited number of women included in the studies, further research in the form of randomised controlled trials are required. Output:
CochranePLS705	[ { "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 six randomised controlled trials that met inclusion criteria (607 participants). We found moderate quality evidence from two studies of no difference between methadone and buprenorphine in self reported opioid use (risk ratio (RR) 0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08 to 1.63) or opioid positive urine drug tests (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.18). There was low quality evidence from three studies of no difference in retention between buprenorphine and methadone maintenance treatment (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.22). There was moderate quality evidence from two studies of no difference between methadone and buprenorphine on adverse events (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.91). We found low quality evidence from three studies favouring maintenance buprenorphine treatment over detoxification or psychological treatment in terms of fewer opioid positive urine drug tests (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.91) and self reported opioid use in the past 30 days (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.93). There was no difference on days of unsanctioned opioid use (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.31, 95% CI -0.66 to 0.04). There was moderate quality evidence favouring buprenorphine maintenance over detoxification or psychological treatment on retention in treatment (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.47). There was moderate quality evidence favouring buprenorphine maintenance over detoxification or psychological treatment on adverse events (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.57). The main weaknesses in the quality of the data was the use of open-label study designs. There was low to moderate quality evidence supporting the use of maintenance agonist pharmacotherapy for pharmaceutical opioid dependence. Methadone or buprenorphine appeared equally effective. Maintenance treatment with buprenorphine appeared more effective than detoxification or psychological treatments. Due to the overall low to moderate quality of the evidence and small sample sizes, there is the possibility that the further research may change these findings.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "We examined the scientific literature up to May 2015. We identified six randomised controlled trials (studies where people were allocated at random to one of two or more treatment or control conditions) involving 607 people who were dependent on pharmaceutical opioids. The people in the study were 77% male and had an average age of 31.6 years. The average duration of the studies comparing different opioid maintenance treatments (three studies that compared methadone to buprenorphine) was 24 weeks, and the average duration of studies comparing a maintenance treatment (three studies with buprenorphine maintenance) to detoxification or psychological treatment was 10 weeks. Five of the six studies were conducted in the US, with one study from Iran. We looked at opioid use and leaving treatment early. Five of the studies were funded by the National Institute of Health (USA), with one study not reporting the funding source. Four studies reported that a drug company provided the medicine. We found that there is probably little or no difference between how well methadone and buprenorphine worked to keep people in treatment, to reduce opioid use, or side effects. We found that buprenorphine probably keeps more people in treatment, may reduce use of opioids, and has fewer side effects compared to detoxification or psychological treatment alone. Overall, the evidence was of low to moderate quality. All studies put people into treatment groups randomly, but the participants and researchers knew which medication the participants were taking, which could bias the results and lower the quality of the evidence. Some of the studies had reasonable numbers of people who did not finish the study in both treatment groups, which means there are some missing results, but the number of people with missing results was similar in both treatment groups of the study for most studies. Most of the studies were similar in design and results were collected in a way that allowed them to compare opioid use and number of people completing the study." } ]	*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 six randomised controlled trials that met inclusion criteria (607 participants). We found moderate quality evidence from two studies of no difference between methadone and buprenorphine in self reported opioid use (risk ratio (RR) 0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08 to 1.63) or opioid positive urine drug tests (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.18). There was low quality evidence from three studies of no difference in retention between buprenorphine and methadone maintenance treatment (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.22). There was moderate quality evidence from two studies of no difference between methadone and buprenorphine on adverse events (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.91). We found low quality evidence from three studies favouring maintenance buprenorphine treatment over detoxification or psychological treatment in terms of fewer opioid positive urine drug tests (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.91) and self reported opioid use in the past 30 days (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.93). There was no difference on days of unsanctioned opioid use (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.31, 95% CI -0.66 to 0.04). There was moderate quality evidence favouring buprenorphine maintenance over detoxification or psychological treatment on retention in treatment (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.47). There was moderate quality evidence favouring buprenorphine maintenance over detoxification or psychological treatment on adverse events (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.57). The main weaknesses in the quality of the data was the use of open-label study designs. There was low to moderate quality evidence supporting the use of maintenance agonist pharmacotherapy for pharmaceutical opioid dependence. Methadone or buprenorphine appeared equally effective. Maintenance treatment with buprenorphine appeared more effective than detoxification or psychological treatments. Due to the overall low to moderate quality of the evidence and small sample sizes, there is the possibility that the further research may change these findings. Output:
CochranePLS2149	[ { "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 prespecified primary outcomes were maternal and neonatal mortality, maternal and neonatal severe infection, and duration of maternal and neonatal hospital stay. We included 11 studies (involving 1296 women) and assessed them as having low to moderate risk of bias - mainly because allocation concealment methods were not adequately reported, most studies were open, and outcome reporting was incomplete. The quality of the evidence was low to very low for most outcomes, as per the GRADE approach. The following antibiotics were assessed in the included trials: ampicillin, ampicillin/sulbactam, gentamicin, clindamycin, and cefotetan. During labor: meta-analysis of two studies found no clear differences in rates of neonatal sepsis (163 neonates; risk ratio (RR) 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 2.86; I² = 9%; low quality of evidence), treatment failure (endometritis) (163 participants; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.70; I² = 0%; low quality of evidence), and postpartum hemorrhage (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.56; I² = 0%; low quality of evidence) when two different dosages/regimens of gentamicin were assessed. No clear differences between groups were found for any reported maternal or neonatal outcomes. The review did not identify data for a comparison of antibiotics versus no treatment/placebo. Postpartum: meta-analysis of two studies that evaluated use of antibiotics versus placebo after vaginal delivery showed no significant differences between groups in rates of treatment failure or postpartum endometritis. No significant differences were found in rates of neonatal death and postpartum endometritis when use of antibiotics was compared with no treatment. Four trials assessing two different dosages/regimens of gentamicin or dual-agent therapy versus triple-agent therapy, or comparing antibiotics, found no significant differences in most reported neonatal or maternal outcomes; the duration of hospital stay showed a difference in favor of the group of women who received short-duration antibiotics (one study, 292 women; mean difference (MD) -0.90 days, 95% CI -1.64 to -0.16; moderate quality of evidence). Intrapartum versus postpartum: one small study (45 women) evaluating use of ampicillin/gentamicin during intrapartum versus immediate postpartum treatment found significant differences favoring the intrapartum group in the mean number of days of maternal postpartum hospital stay (one trial, 45 women; MD -1.00 days, 95% CI -1.94 to - 0.06; very low quality of evidence) and the mean number of neonatal hospital stay days (one trial, 45 neonates; MD -1.90 days, 95% CI -3.91 to -0.49; very low quality of evidence). Although no significant differences were found in the rate of maternal bacteremia or early neonatal sepsis, for the outcome of neonatal pneumonia or sepsis we observed a significant difference favoring intrapartum treatment (one trial, 45 neonates; RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.95; very low quality of evidence). This review included 11 studies (having low to moderate risk of bias). The quality of the evidence was low to very low for most outcomes, as per the GRADE approach. Only one outcome (duration of hospital stay) was considered to provide moderate quality of evidence when antibiotics (short duration) were compared with antibiotics (long duration) during postpartum management of intra-amniotic infection. Our main reasons for downgrading the quality of evidence were limitations in study design or execution (risk of bias), imprecision, and inconsistency of results. Currently, limited evidence is available to reveal the most appropriate antimicrobial regimen for the treatment of patients with intra-amniotic infection; whether antibiotics should be continued during the postpartum period; and which antibiotic regimen or what treatment duration should be used. Also, no evidence was found on adverse effects of the intervention (not reported in any of the included studies). One small RCT showed that use of antibiotics during the intrapartum period is superior to their use during the postpartum period in reducing the number of days of maternal and neonatal hospital stay.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "a total of 11 studies were identified with 1296 women; most studies were conducted in the USA. Four studies evaluated the use of antibiotics before the birth (antepartum); six studies evaluated the use of antibiotics after birth (postpartum); and one compared antibiotic administration both before and after birth. the quality of the evidence was ranked low to very low, mainly because many studies had methodological limitations with outcome results based on limited numbers of trials and included participants that could be pooled. based on the findings of one study, treatment during labor was found to be more effective than treatment after labor; however this finding relates only to maternal and neonatal length of hospital stay and to neonatal severe infection. No evidence indicated that a higher dose of antibiotics before birth was superior to a lower dose. Immediately following birth, no evidence showed that different types of antibiotics or longer or shorter treatment duration improved the health of the mother and her newborn. All women who participated in the postpartum trials received antibiotics before the time of birth. Therefore insufficient information was available from randomized controlled trials to reveal the most appropriate regimen of antibiotics for the treatment of patients with intra-amniotic infection, whether antibiotics should be continued during the postpartum period, and which antibiotic regimen should be used and for what duration. None of the included studies reported information related to adverse effects of the intervention." } ]	*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 prespecified primary outcomes were maternal and neonatal mortality, maternal and neonatal severe infection, and duration of maternal and neonatal hospital stay. We included 11 studies (involving 1296 women) and assessed them as having low to moderate risk of bias - mainly because allocation concealment methods were not adequately reported, most studies were open, and outcome reporting was incomplete. The quality of the evidence was low to very low for most outcomes, as per the GRADE approach. The following antibiotics were assessed in the included trials: ampicillin, ampicillin/sulbactam, gentamicin, clindamycin, and cefotetan. During labor: meta-analysis of two studies found no clear differences in rates of neonatal sepsis (163 neonates; risk ratio (RR) 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 2.86; I² = 9%; low quality of evidence), treatment failure (endometritis) (163 participants; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.70; I² = 0%; low quality of evidence), and postpartum hemorrhage (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.56; I² = 0%; low quality of evidence) when two different dosages/regimens of gentamicin were assessed. No clear differences between groups were found for any reported maternal or neonatal outcomes. The review did not identify data for a comparison of antibiotics versus no treatment/placebo. Postpartum: meta-analysis of two studies that evaluated use of antibiotics versus placebo after vaginal delivery showed no significant differences between groups in rates of treatment failure or postpartum endometritis. No significant differences were found in rates of neonatal death and postpartum endometritis when use of antibiotics was compared with no treatment. Four trials assessing two different dosages/regimens of gentamicin or dual-agent therapy versus triple-agent therapy, or comparing antibiotics, found no significant differences in most reported neonatal or maternal outcomes; the duration of hospital stay showed a difference in favor of the group of women who received short-duration antibiotics (one study, 292 women; mean difference (MD) -0.90 days, 95% CI -1.64 to -0.16; moderate quality of evidence). Intrapartum versus postpartum: one small study (45 women) evaluating use of ampicillin/gentamicin during intrapartum versus immediate postpartum treatment found significant differences favoring the intrapartum group in the mean number of days of maternal postpartum hospital stay (one trial, 45 women; MD -1.00 days, 95% CI -1.94 to - 0.06; very low quality of evidence) and the mean number of neonatal hospital stay days (one trial, 45 neonates; MD -1.90 days, 95% CI -3.91 to -0.49; very low quality of evidence). Although no significant differences were found in the rate of maternal bacteremia or early neonatal sepsis, for the outcome of neonatal pneumonia or sepsis we observed a significant difference favoring intrapartum treatment (one trial, 45 neonates; RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.95; very low quality of evidence). This review included 11 studies (having low to moderate risk of bias). The quality of the evidence was low to very low for most outcomes, as per the GRADE approach. Only one outcome (duration of hospital stay) was considered to provide moderate quality of evidence when antibiotics (short duration) were compared with antibiotics (long duration) during postpartum management of intra-amniotic infection. Our main reasons for downgrading the quality of evidence were limitations in study design or execution (risk of bias), imprecision, and inconsistency of results. Currently, limited evidence is available to reveal the most appropriate antimicrobial regimen for the treatment of patients with intra-amniotic infection; whether antibiotics should be continued during the postpartum period; and which antibiotic regimen or what treatment duration should be used. Also, no evidence was found on adverse effects of the intervention (not reported in any of the included studies). One small RCT showed that use of antibiotics during the intrapartum period is superior to their use during the postpartum period in reducing the number of days of maternal and neonatal hospital stay. Output:
CochranePLS280	[ { "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: A total of 16 studies were included. All studies reported on TAUS and EUS as separate tests and not as a combination of tests. All studies were at high or unclear risk of bias, ten studies had high applicability concerns in participant selection (because of inappropriate participant exclusions) or reference standards (because of lack of follow-up for non-operated polyps), and three studies had unclear applicability concerns in participant selection (because of high prevalence of gallbladder polyps) or index tests (because of lack of details on ultrasound equipment and performance). A meta-analysis directly comparing results of TAUS and EUS in the same population could not be performed because only limited studies executed both tests in the same participants. Therefore, the results below were obtained only from indirect test comparisons. There was significant heterogeneity amongst all comparisons (target conditions) on TAUS and amongst studies on EUS for differentiating true and pseudo polyps. Detection of gallbladder polyps: Six studies (16,260 participants) used TAUS. We found no studies on EUS. The summary sensitivity and specificity of TAUS for the detection of gallbladder polyps was 0.84 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.95) and 0.96 (95% CI 0.92 to 0.98), respectively. In a cohort of 1000 people, with a 6.4% prevalence of gallbladder polyps, this would result in 37 overdiagnosed and seven missed gallbladder polyps. Differentiation between true polyp and pseudo gallbladder polyp: Six studies (1078 participants) used TAUS; the summary sensitivity was 0.68 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.85) and the summary specificity was 0.79 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.91). Three studies (209 participants) used EUS; the summary sensitivity was 0.85 (95% CI 0.46 to 0.97) and the summary specificity was 0.90 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.96). In a cohort of 1000 participants with gallbladder polyps, with 10% having true polyps, this would result in 189 overdiagnosed and 32 missed true polyps by TAUS, and 90 overdiagnosed and 15 missed true polyps by EUS. There was no evidence of a difference between the diagnostic accuracy of TAUS and EUS (relative sensitivity 1.06, P = 0.70, relative specificity 1.15, P = 0.12). Differentiation between dysplastic polyps/carcinomas and adenomas/pseudo polyps of the gallbladder: Four studies (1,009 participants) used TAUS; the summary sensitivity was 0.79 (95% CI 0.62 to 0.90) and the summary specificity was 0.89 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.97). Three studies (351 participants) used EUS; the summary sensitivity was 0.86 (95% CI 0.76 to 0.92) and the summary specificity was 0.92 (95% CI 0.85 to 0.95). In a cohort of 1000 participants with gallbladder polyps, with 5% having a dysplastic polyp/carcinoma, this would result in 105 overdiagnosed and 11 missed dysplastic polyps/carcinomas by TAUS and 76 overdiagnosed and seven missed dysplastic polyps/carcinomas by EUS. There was no evidence of a difference between the diagnostic accuracy of TAUS and EUS (log likelihood test P = 0.74). Although TAUS seems quite good at discriminating between gallbladder polyps and no polyps, it is less accurate in detecting whether the polyp is a true or pseudo polyp and dysplastic polyp/carcinoma or adenoma/pseudo polyp. In practice, this would lead to both unnecessary surgeries for pseudo polyps and missed cases of true polyps, dysplastic polyps, and carcinomas. There was insufficient evidence that EUS is better compared to TAUS in differentiating between true and pseudo polyps and between dysplastic polyps/carcinomas and adenomas/pseudo polyps. The conclusions are based on heterogeneous studies with unclear criteria for diagnosis of the target conditions and studies at high or unclear risk of bias. Therefore, results should be interpreted with caution. Further studies of high methodological quality, with clearly stated criteria for diagnosis of gallbladder polyps, true polyps, and dysplastic polyps/carcinomas are needed to accurately determine diagnostic accuracy of EUS and TAUS.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "A total of 16 studies were included. All studies reported on TAUS and EUS as separate tests and did not use a combination of TAUS and EUS. Six studies (16,260 participants) used TAUS for diagnosis of gallbladder polyps. No studies on the diagnosis of gallbladder polyps by EUS were found. Six studies (1,078 participants) used TAUS and three studies (209 participants) used EUS for differentiating between true and pseudo polyps. Four studies (1,009 participants) used TAUS and three studies (351 participants) used EUS for differentiating between (pre)cancerous and benign polyps. In a general population of 1000 people (in which 6.4% have a gallbladder polyp), TAUS will overdiagnose 37 people without a polyp as having a polyp, and in 7 people with a polyp, the polyp will be missed. In a population of 1000 people with a gallbladder polyp, of which 10% have a true polyp, 189 people with a pseudo polyp will be indicated as having a true polyp by TAUS, and 90 people by EUS. These people may be treated, which is not necessary. In 32 people, the true polyp will be misclassified as a pseudo polyp by TAUS and in 15 people by EUS. These people would not be treated, while they may need treatment. In a population of 1000 people with a gallbladder polyp, of which 5% have a (pre)cancerous polyp, 105 people with a benign polyp will be indicated as having a (pre)cancerous polyp by TAUS, and 75 people by EUS. These people may be overtreated for a (precursor of) cancer, which is not there. In 11 people, the (pre)cancerous polyp will be misclassified as a benign polyp by TAUS, and in 7 people by EUS. These participants may not receive proper treatment for their (precursor of) cancer. TAUS will correctly diagnose 956 out of 1000 people regarding the presence or absence of gallbladder polyps. For differentiating between polyp types, fewer people will be correctly diagnosed by TAUS, leading to unnecessary treatment for pseudo polyps and neglect of (pre)cancerous polyps. There was insufficient evidence that EUS is better than TAUS in differentiating between true and pseudo polyps and between (pre)cancerous and benign polyps. All studies were either at high or unclear risk of bias and 13 studies had either high or unclear applicability concerns. This may undermine the validity of the studies. Further studies of high methodological quality and with clearly reported criteria for diagnosis of gallbladder polyps, true polyps, and (pre)cancerous polyps are necessary." } ]	*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: A total of 16 studies were included. All studies reported on TAUS and EUS as separate tests and not as a combination of tests. All studies were at high or unclear risk of bias, ten studies had high applicability concerns in participant selection (because of inappropriate participant exclusions) or reference standards (because of lack of follow-up for non-operated polyps), and three studies had unclear applicability concerns in participant selection (because of high prevalence of gallbladder polyps) or index tests (because of lack of details on ultrasound equipment and performance). A meta-analysis directly comparing results of TAUS and EUS in the same population could not be performed because only limited studies executed both tests in the same participants. Therefore, the results below were obtained only from indirect test comparisons. There was significant heterogeneity amongst all comparisons (target conditions) on TAUS and amongst studies on EUS for differentiating true and pseudo polyps. Detection of gallbladder polyps: Six studies (16,260 participants) used TAUS. We found no studies on EUS. The summary sensitivity and specificity of TAUS for the detection of gallbladder polyps was 0.84 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.95) and 0.96 (95% CI 0.92 to 0.98), respectively. In a cohort of 1000 people, with a 6.4% prevalence of gallbladder polyps, this would result in 37 overdiagnosed and seven missed gallbladder polyps. Differentiation between true polyp and pseudo gallbladder polyp: Six studies (1078 participants) used TAUS; the summary sensitivity was 0.68 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.85) and the summary specificity was 0.79 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.91). Three studies (209 participants) used EUS; the summary sensitivity was 0.85 (95% CI 0.46 to 0.97) and the summary specificity was 0.90 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.96). In a cohort of 1000 participants with gallbladder polyps, with 10% having true polyps, this would result in 189 overdiagnosed and 32 missed true polyps by TAUS, and 90 overdiagnosed and 15 missed true polyps by EUS. There was no evidence of a difference between the diagnostic accuracy of TAUS and EUS (relative sensitivity 1.06, P = 0.70, relative specificity 1.15, P = 0.12). Differentiation between dysplastic polyps/carcinomas and adenomas/pseudo polyps of the gallbladder: Four studies (1,009 participants) used TAUS; the summary sensitivity was 0.79 (95% CI 0.62 to 0.90) and the summary specificity was 0.89 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.97). Three studies (351 participants) used EUS; the summary sensitivity was 0.86 (95% CI 0.76 to 0.92) and the summary specificity was 0.92 (95% CI 0.85 to 0.95). In a cohort of 1000 participants with gallbladder polyps, with 5% having a dysplastic polyp/carcinoma, this would result in 105 overdiagnosed and 11 missed dysplastic polyps/carcinomas by TAUS and 76 overdiagnosed and seven missed dysplastic polyps/carcinomas by EUS. There was no evidence of a difference between the diagnostic accuracy of TAUS and EUS (log likelihood test P = 0.74). Although TAUS seems quite good at discriminating between gallbladder polyps and no polyps, it is less accurate in detecting whether the polyp is a true or pseudo polyp and dysplastic polyp/carcinoma or adenoma/pseudo polyp. In practice, this would lead to both unnecessary surgeries for pseudo polyps and missed cases of true polyps, dysplastic polyps, and carcinomas. There was insufficient evidence that EUS is better compared to TAUS in differentiating between true and pseudo polyps and between dysplastic polyps/carcinomas and adenomas/pseudo polyps. The conclusions are based on heterogeneous studies with unclear criteria for diagnosis of the target conditions and studies at high or unclear risk of bias. Therefore, results should be interpreted with caution. Further studies of high methodological quality, with clearly stated criteria for diagnosis of gallbladder polyps, true polyps, and dysplastic polyps/carcinomas are needed to accurately determine diagnostic accuracy of EUS and TAUS. Output:
CochranePLS497	[ { "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 11 studies randomizing 4014 participants to molecular-targeted therapy plus conventional chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone. Five were at low risk of bias, and we considered the risk of bias in the other six studies to be high, mainly due to their open-label design. All identified studies reported data regarding survival. We found low-quality evidence that molecular-targeted may have a small effect on mortality (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.05, 10 studies) compared with conventional chemotherapy alone. Similarly, it may have little effect on progression-free survival when compared with conventional chemotherapy alone (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.04, 11 studies; low-quality evidence). We did not find evidence from subgroup analysis that survival outcomes differed by type of molecular-targeted agent (EGFR- or VEGF-targeting agents) or tumor type, meaning that we were unable to explain the variation in effect across the studies by the presence or absence of prognostic biomarkers or type of molecular-targeted agent. From 11 eligible trials, we were able to use data from 3723 participants with measurable tumors. We found low-quality evidence that molecular-targeted therapy may increase tumor response (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.55, low-quality evidence). Data from one small trial were too limited to determine the effect of treatment on quality of life (very low-quality evidence). The addition of targeted therapy to chemotherapy probably increases the risk of adverse events (OR 2.23, 95% CI 1.27 to 3.92, 5 trials, 2290 participants, moderate-quality evidence) and severe adverse event (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.37, 8 trials, 3800 participants), compared with receiving chemotherapy alone. There is uncertainty about the effect of adding targeted therapy to chemotherapy on survival outcomes in people with advanced gastric cancer, with very little information on its impact on quality of life. There is more certain evidence of increased risk of adverse events and serious adverse events. The main limitation of the evidence for survival outcomes was inconsistency of effects across the studies, which we could not explain by prespecified subgroups in terms of the type of therapy or tumor type. Ongoing studies in this area are small and unlikely to improve our understanding of the effects of targeted therapy, and larger studies are needed.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "We searched databases until December 2015 for randomized controlled trials (clinical trials where people are randomly allocated to one of two or more treatment groups) in adults (aged 18 years or over), diagnosed with late-stage stomach cancer. We found 11 trials (4014 participants) that met our selection requirements and randomized people to receive targeted treatment plus chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone. Adding molecular-targeted treatment to chemotherapy may have a small effect on survival and on stopping further development of the disease, compared with chemotherapy alone, but the evidence is of low quality. The treatment may increase the likelihood that tumors get smaller (low-quality evidence), but there is insufficient evidence to know how much of a difference it can make to the person's quality of life (very low-quality evidence). It probably increases the risk of adverse events and serious adverse events (moderate-quality evidence). Currently, the evidence is of low quality for survival outcomes, mainly due to the type of study design, and the inconsistencies between the results of individual studies. We therefore suggest that well-designed clinical trials should be performed, to improve the evidence base." } ]	*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 11 studies randomizing 4014 participants to molecular-targeted therapy plus conventional chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone. Five were at low risk of bias, and we considered the risk of bias in the other six studies to be high, mainly due to their open-label design. All identified studies reported data regarding survival. We found low-quality evidence that molecular-targeted may have a small effect on mortality (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.05, 10 studies) compared with conventional chemotherapy alone. Similarly, it may have little effect on progression-free survival when compared with conventional chemotherapy alone (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.04, 11 studies; low-quality evidence). We did not find evidence from subgroup analysis that survival outcomes differed by type of molecular-targeted agent (EGFR- or VEGF-targeting agents) or tumor type, meaning that we were unable to explain the variation in effect across the studies by the presence or absence of prognostic biomarkers or type of molecular-targeted agent. From 11 eligible trials, we were able to use data from 3723 participants with measurable tumors. We found low-quality evidence that molecular-targeted therapy may increase tumor response (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.55, low-quality evidence). Data from one small trial were too limited to determine the effect of treatment on quality of life (very low-quality evidence). The addition of targeted therapy to chemotherapy probably increases the risk of adverse events (OR 2.23, 95% CI 1.27 to 3.92, 5 trials, 2290 participants, moderate-quality evidence) and severe adverse event (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.37, 8 trials, 3800 participants), compared with receiving chemotherapy alone. There is uncertainty about the effect of adding targeted therapy to chemotherapy on survival outcomes in people with advanced gastric cancer, with very little information on its impact on quality of life. There is more certain evidence of increased risk of adverse events and serious adverse events. The main limitation of the evidence for survival outcomes was inconsistency of effects across the studies, which we could not explain by prespecified subgroups in terms of the type of therapy or tumor type. Ongoing studies in this area are small and unlikely to improve our understanding of the effects of targeted therapy, and larger studies are needed. Output:
CochranePLS1710	[ { "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 24 trials with 2996 participants in this updated review. The number of participants in each trial varied from 39 to 382. Most of the included studies compared bed rest versus immediate mobilization, and only two assessed the effects of supplementary fluids versus no supplementation. We judged the overall risk of bias of the included studies as low to unclear. The overall quality of evidence was low to moderate, downgraded because of the risk of bias assessment in most cases. The primary outcome in our review was the presence of PDPH. There was low quality evidence for an absence of benefits associated with bed rest compared with immediate mobilization on the incidence of severe PDPH (risk ratio (RR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68 to 1.41; participants = 1568; studies = 9) and moderate quality evidence on the incidence of any headache after lumbar puncture (RR 1.16; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.32; participants = 2477; studies = 18). Furthermore, bed rest probably increased PDPH (RR 1.24; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.48; participants = 1519; studies = 12) compared with immediate mobilization. An analysis restricted to the most methodologically rigorous trials (i.e. those with low risk of bias in allocation method, missing data and blinding of outcome assessment) gave similar results. There was low quality evidence for an absence of benefits associated with fluid supplementation on the incidence of severe PDPH (RR 0.67; 95% CI 0.26 to 1.73; participants = 100; studies = 1) and PDPH (RR 1; 95% CI 0.59 to 1.69; participants = 100; studies = 1), and moderate quality evidence on the incidence of any headache after lumbar puncture (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.66 to 1.34; participants = 200; studies = 2). We did not expect other adverse events and did not assess them in this review. Since the previous version of this review, we found one new study for inclusion, but the conclusion remains unchanged. We considered the quality of the evidence for most of the outcomes assessed in this review to be low to moderate. As identified studies had shortcomings on aspects related to randomization and blinding of outcome assessment, we therefore downgraded the quality of the evidence. In general, there was no evidence suggesting that routine bed rest after dural puncture is beneficial for the prevention of PDPH onset. The role of fluid supplementation in the prevention of PDPH remains unclear.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "This is an update of the original review published in 2013. We found one new study in a search of the published literature in February 2015. This review includes 24 studies with 2996 participants. We compared different types of bed rest and extra fluids to see if they prevented PDPH after a lumbar puncture. We found low to moderate quality evidence that bed rest does not prevent the onset of headaches after lumbar puncture, regardless of the duration of rest or the body or head positions assumed by the patient. Furthermore, bed rest probably increases the chances of having PDPH. We found few data on the usefulness of extra fluids, which did not seem to prevent PDPH. We believe that these practices should no longer be routinely recommended to patients for the prevention of headaches after lumbar puncture since there is no evidence supporting them. We considered the quality of the evidence for most of the outcomes assessed in this review to be low to moderate." } ]	*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 24 trials with 2996 participants in this updated review. The number of participants in each trial varied from 39 to 382. Most of the included studies compared bed rest versus immediate mobilization, and only two assessed the effects of supplementary fluids versus no supplementation. We judged the overall risk of bias of the included studies as low to unclear. The overall quality of evidence was low to moderate, downgraded because of the risk of bias assessment in most cases. The primary outcome in our review was the presence of PDPH. There was low quality evidence for an absence of benefits associated with bed rest compared with immediate mobilization on the incidence of severe PDPH (risk ratio (RR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68 to 1.41; participants = 1568; studies = 9) and moderate quality evidence on the incidence of any headache after lumbar puncture (RR 1.16; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.32; participants = 2477; studies = 18). Furthermore, bed rest probably increased PDPH (RR 1.24; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.48; participants = 1519; studies = 12) compared with immediate mobilization. An analysis restricted to the most methodologically rigorous trials (i.e. those with low risk of bias in allocation method, missing data and blinding of outcome assessment) gave similar results. There was low quality evidence for an absence of benefits associated with fluid supplementation on the incidence of severe PDPH (RR 0.67; 95% CI 0.26 to 1.73; participants = 100; studies = 1) and PDPH (RR 1; 95% CI 0.59 to 1.69; participants = 100; studies = 1), and moderate quality evidence on the incidence of any headache after lumbar puncture (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.66 to 1.34; participants = 200; studies = 2). We did not expect other adverse events and did not assess them in this review. Since the previous version of this review, we found one new study for inclusion, but the conclusion remains unchanged. We considered the quality of the evidence for most of the outcomes assessed in this review to be low to moderate. As identified studies had shortcomings on aspects related to randomization and blinding of outcome assessment, we therefore downgraded the quality of the evidence. In general, there was no evidence suggesting that routine bed rest after dural puncture is beneficial for the prevention of PDPH onset. The role of fluid supplementation in the prevention of PDPH remains unclear. Output:
CochranePLS335	[ { "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 searches identified 22 trials (34 references). Four trials (200 participants) are included: one short-term single-center trial (n = 7) comparing insulin with oral repaglinide and no medication in people with cystic fibrosis-related diabetes and normal fasting glucose; one long-term multicenter trial (n = 100, 74 of whom had cystic fibrosis-related diabetes) comparing insulin with oral repaglinide and placebo; one long-term multicenter trial (n = 73) comparing insulin with oral repaglinide; and one 12-week single-center trial (n = 20) comparing the long-acting insulin glargine to short-term neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin. Two trials with data for the comparison of insulin to placebo did not report any significant differences between groups for the primary outcomes of blood glucose levels, lung function and nutritional status. This was also true for the single trial with data for the comparison of repaglinide to placebo. Two trials (one lasting one year and one lasting two years) contributed data for the comparison of insulin versus repaglinide. There were no significant differences for the primary outcomes at any time point, except at one year (in the two-year trial) when the insulin group had significant improvement in z score for body mass index compared to the repaglinide group. The single trial comparing glargine to neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin also did not report any significant differences in the review's primary outcomes. A few cases of hypoglycemia were seen in three out of the four trials (none in the longest trial), but these events resolved without further treatment. There was an unclear risk of bias from randomization and allocation concealment in two of the four included trials as the authors did not report any details; in the remaining two studies details for randomization led to a low risk of bias, but only one had sufficient details on allocation concealment to allow a low risk judgement, the second was unclear. There was a high risk from blinding for all trials (except for the comparison of oral repaglinide versus placebo) due to the nature of the interventions. Complete data for all outcomes were not available from any trial leading to a high risk of reporting bias. The amounts of insulin and repaglinide administered were not comparable and this may lead to bias in the results. None of the included trials were powered to show a significant improvement in lung function. This review has not found any significant conclusive evidence that long-acting insulins, short-acting insulins or oral hypoglycemic agents have a distinct advantage over one another in controlling hyperglycemia or clinical outcomes associated with cystic fibrosis-related diabetes. While some cystic fibrosis centers use oral medications to help control diabetes, the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation (USA) clinical practice guidelines support the use of insulin therapy and this remains the most widely-used treatment method. Randomized controlled trials specifically related to controlling diabetes with this impact on the course of pulmonary disease process in cystic fibrosis continue to be a high priority. There is no demonstrated advantage yet established for using oral hypoglycemic agents over insulin, and further trials need to be evaluated to establish whether there is clear benefit for using hypoglycemic agents. Agents that potentiate insulin action, especially agents with additional anti-inflammatory potential should be further investigated to see if there may be a clinical advantage to adding these medications to insulin as adjuvant therapy.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "We included four randomized trials with a total of 200 participants. The trials' duration ranged from single doses to 24 months of treatment. Three trials compared insulin (given via a syringe) to repaglinide tablets and recruited 180 people between them. Trial participants had an average age of 25 years and mild to severe diabetes. One of these trials (73 people) compared the two treatment groups directly over a two-year period; the remaining two trials each had a third treatment arm - one (seven people) compared single doses of insulin to repaglinide and to no treatment and the other (100 people) compared insulin to repaglinide and to a placebo (a dummy tablet with no active medication) for 12 months. The fourth trial recruited 20 participants with an average age of 34 years and compared the long-acting insulin glargine to short-term neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin over a 12-week period. We were not able to show that any of the treatments were better than the others. Only a few cases of hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) were seen in three out of the four trials (none in the longest trial), but these events resolved without further treatment. Longer-term studies are still needed to see how controlling cystic fibrosis-related diabetes affects lung function. There also needs to be research into the use of agents used together with insulin to enhance its action, especially those agents with additional anti-inflammatory potential. The participants would have been mostly able to tell which treatment they were receiving (e.g. insulin via a syringe or repaglinide as a tablet), so we thought there was a high risk from blinding in all trials (except when comparing repaglinide tablets to placebo (dummy) tablets). In two trials we are satisfied that participants were put into the different treatment groups completely at random; however, the other two trial reports were not clear on how it was decided which group the participants were put into. In only one trial was it clear that no one knew in advance which group a participant would be put into, in the other three trials there were no details given. There could be some bias if it was known in advance which group the next participant would be in, e.g. healthier participants might be put into one group to show better results for that treatment. There were also many results which were not fully reported in the publications. Finally, there may be bias in the results as the amounts of insulin and repaglinide given were not comparable." } ]	*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 searches identified 22 trials (34 references). Four trials (200 participants) are included: one short-term single-center trial (n = 7) comparing insulin with oral repaglinide and no medication in people with cystic fibrosis-related diabetes and normal fasting glucose; one long-term multicenter trial (n = 100, 74 of whom had cystic fibrosis-related diabetes) comparing insulin with oral repaglinide and placebo; one long-term multicenter trial (n = 73) comparing insulin with oral repaglinide; and one 12-week single-center trial (n = 20) comparing the long-acting insulin glargine to short-term neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin. Two trials with data for the comparison of insulin to placebo did not report any significant differences between groups for the primary outcomes of blood glucose levels, lung function and nutritional status. This was also true for the single trial with data for the comparison of repaglinide to placebo. Two trials (one lasting one year and one lasting two years) contributed data for the comparison of insulin versus repaglinide. There were no significant differences for the primary outcomes at any time point, except at one year (in the two-year trial) when the insulin group had significant improvement in z score for body mass index compared to the repaglinide group. The single trial comparing glargine to neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin also did not report any significant differences in the review's primary outcomes. A few cases of hypoglycemia were seen in three out of the four trials (none in the longest trial), but these events resolved without further treatment. There was an unclear risk of bias from randomization and allocation concealment in two of the four included trials as the authors did not report any details; in the remaining two studies details for randomization led to a low risk of bias, but only one had sufficient details on allocation concealment to allow a low risk judgement, the second was unclear. There was a high risk from blinding for all trials (except for the comparison of oral repaglinide versus placebo) due to the nature of the interventions. Complete data for all outcomes were not available from any trial leading to a high risk of reporting bias. The amounts of insulin and repaglinide administered were not comparable and this may lead to bias in the results. None of the included trials were powered to show a significant improvement in lung function. This review has not found any significant conclusive evidence that long-acting insulins, short-acting insulins or oral hypoglycemic agents have a distinct advantage over one another in controlling hyperglycemia or clinical outcomes associated with cystic fibrosis-related diabetes. While some cystic fibrosis centers use oral medications to help control diabetes, the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation (USA) clinical practice guidelines support the use of insulin therapy and this remains the most widely-used treatment method. Randomized controlled trials specifically related to controlling diabetes with this impact on the course of pulmonary disease process in cystic fibrosis continue to be a high priority. There is no demonstrated advantage yet established for using oral hypoglycemic agents over insulin, and further trials need to be evaluated to establish whether there is clear benefit for using hypoglycemic agents. Agents that potentiate insulin action, especially agents with additional anti-inflammatory potential should be further investigated to see if there may be a clinical advantage to adding these medications to insulin as adjuvant therapy. Output:
CochranePLS439	[ { "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: Seventeen trials were included. These involved 1433 people, mostly young physically active adults. All included trials had methodological weaknesses and were at risk of bias, notably selection bias from inadequate or lack of allocation concealment. Data for pooling individual outcomes were available for a maximum of nine trials and 54% of participants. There were no statistically or clinically significant differences between double-bundle and single-bundle reconstruction in the subjective functional knee scores (subjective IKDC score, Tegner activity score, Lysholm score) in the intermediate (six months up to two years since surgery) or long term (two to five years from surgery). For example, the long term results for the Lysholm score (0 to 100: best score) were: mean difference (MD) 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.50 to 1.75; 5 trials, 263 participants). The only trial reporting on long term knee pain found no statistically significant differences between the two groups. There were no significant differences between the two groups in adverse effects and complications (e.g. infection reported by nine trials (7/285 versus 7/393; risk ratio (RR) 1.14, 95% CI 0.46 to 2.81); graft failure reported by six trials (1/169 versus 4/185; RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.07 to 2.90). Limited data from five trials found a better return to pre-injury level of activity after double-bundle reconstruction (147/162 versus 208/255; RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.25). At long term follow-up, there were statistically significant differences in favour of double-bundle reconstruction for IKDC knee examination (normal or nearly normal categories: 325/344 versus 386/429; RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.08; 9 trials), knee stability measured with KT-1000 arthrometer (MD -0.74 mm, 95% CI -1.10 to -0.37; 5 trials, 363 participants) and rotational knee stability tested by the pivot-shift test (normal or nearly normal categories: 293/298 versus 382/415; RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.09; 9 trials). There were also statistically significant differences in favour of double-bundle reconstruction for newly occurring meniscal injury (9/240 versus 24/358; RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.92; 6 trials) and traumatic ACL rupture (1/120 versus 8/149; RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.96; 3 trials). There were no statistically significant differences found between the two groups in range of motion (flexion and extension) deficits. There is insufficient evidence to determine the relative effectiveness of double-bundle and single-bundle reconstruction for anterior cruciate ligament rupture in adults, although there is limited evidence that double-bundle ACL reconstruction has some superior results in objective measurements of knee stability and protection against repeat ACL rupture or a new meniscal injury. High quality, large and appropriately reported randomised controlled trials of double-bundle versus single-bundle reconstruction for anterior cruciate ligament rupture in adults appear justified.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "Seventeen trials were included. These involved 1433 patients, who were mostly young physically active adults. All included trials had methodological weaknesses that are likely to undermine the reliability of their results. Data for pooling individual outcomes were available for a maximum of nine trials. There was not enough evidence of differences between two groups in terms of functional knee scores, adverse effects and complications (infection, hardware problem such as pain from fixation device, graft failure), range of motion (flexion and extension deficit). At long term follow-up, some clinician-assessed measures of knee stability and repeated rupture rate or occurrence of new meniscal injuries were better after double-bundle reconstruction. We concluded that there was not enough evidence to say whether double-bundle reconstruction gives better results than single-bundle reconstruction for anterior cruciate ligament rupture in adults. However, there is limited evidence that double-bundle ACL reconstruction has some superior results for knee stability and protection against repeat ACL rupture or newly occurring meniscal injury." } ]	*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: Seventeen trials were included. These involved 1433 people, mostly young physically active adults. All included trials had methodological weaknesses and were at risk of bias, notably selection bias from inadequate or lack of allocation concealment. Data for pooling individual outcomes were available for a maximum of nine trials and 54% of participants. There were no statistically or clinically significant differences between double-bundle and single-bundle reconstruction in the subjective functional knee scores (subjective IKDC score, Tegner activity score, Lysholm score) in the intermediate (six months up to two years since surgery) or long term (two to five years from surgery). For example, the long term results for the Lysholm score (0 to 100: best score) were: mean difference (MD) 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.50 to 1.75; 5 trials, 263 participants). The only trial reporting on long term knee pain found no statistically significant differences between the two groups. There were no significant differences between the two groups in adverse effects and complications (e.g. infection reported by nine trials (7/285 versus 7/393; risk ratio (RR) 1.14, 95% CI 0.46 to 2.81); graft failure reported by six trials (1/169 versus 4/185; RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.07 to 2.90). Limited data from five trials found a better return to pre-injury level of activity after double-bundle reconstruction (147/162 versus 208/255; RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.25). At long term follow-up, there were statistically significant differences in favour of double-bundle reconstruction for IKDC knee examination (normal or nearly normal categories: 325/344 versus 386/429; RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.08; 9 trials), knee stability measured with KT-1000 arthrometer (MD -0.74 mm, 95% CI -1.10 to -0.37; 5 trials, 363 participants) and rotational knee stability tested by the pivot-shift test (normal or nearly normal categories: 293/298 versus 382/415; RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.09; 9 trials). There were also statistically significant differences in favour of double-bundle reconstruction for newly occurring meniscal injury (9/240 versus 24/358; RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.92; 6 trials) and traumatic ACL rupture (1/120 versus 8/149; RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.96; 3 trials). There were no statistically significant differences found between the two groups in range of motion (flexion and extension) deficits. There is insufficient evidence to determine the relative effectiveness of double-bundle and single-bundle reconstruction for anterior cruciate ligament rupture in adults, although there is limited evidence that double-bundle ACL reconstruction has some superior results in objective measurements of knee stability and protection against repeat ACL rupture or a new meniscal injury. High quality, large and appropriately reported randomised controlled trials of double-bundle versus single-bundle reconstruction for anterior cruciate ligament rupture in adults appear justified. Output:
CochranePLS964	[ { "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 no studies for inclusion in the original review or for this update. However, we felt that some studies that were excluded warranted discussion. These included one randomised trial (RCT), which showed no improvement in sexual scores associated with encouraging women to practise dilation therapy; a recent small RCT that did not show any advantage to dilation over vibration therapy during radiotherapy; two non-randomised comparative studies; and five correlation studies. One of these showed that objective measurements of vaginal elasticity and length were not linked to dilation during radiotherapy, but the study lacked power. One study showed that women who dilated tolerated a larger dilator, but the risk of objectivity and bias with historical controls was high. Another study showed that the vaginal measurements increased in length by a mean of 3 cm after dilation was introduced 6 to 10 weeks after radiotherapy, but there was no control group; another case series showed the opposite. Three recent studies showed less stenosis associated with prophylactic dilation after radiotherapy. One small case series suggested that dilation years after radiotherapy might restore the vagina to a functional length. There is no reliable evidence to show that routine, regular vaginal dilation during radiotherapy treatment prevents stenosis or improves quality of life. Several observational studies have examined the effect of dilation therapy after radiotherapy. They suggest that frequent dilation practice is associated with lower rates of self reported stenosis. This could be because dilation is effective or because women with a healthy vagina are more likely to comply with dilation therapy instructions compared to women with strictures. We would normally suggest that a RCT is needed to distinguish between a casual and causative link, but pilot studies highlight many reasons why RCT methodology is challenging in this area.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "Women who want to preserve the length of their vagina after radiotherapy should consider dilation. There are limited data from observational studies that suggest regular stretching of the vagina, once radiotherapy treatment is completed, might reduce the risk of scaring by a small amount. There is no evidence to support dilation therapy during radiotherapy. There are also case reports and one case series suggesting that dilation months or years after radiotherapy might help restore vaginal length. Randomised trial design has not, and may never, obtain high-quality evidence to assess vaginal dilation therapy. The available studies suggest, but cannot prove, that dilation works. However, this only applies once the radiotherapy has finished. There is an association between vaginal dilation after radiotherapy and less vaginal stenosis, but this is not proof that the benefit is due to dilation. The link between dilation and less stenosis could either be due to a beneficial effect of dilation or because women with stenosis (or who self report stenosis) are less able to use the dilator." } ]	*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 no studies for inclusion in the original review or for this update. However, we felt that some studies that were excluded warranted discussion. These included one randomised trial (RCT), which showed no improvement in sexual scores associated with encouraging women to practise dilation therapy; a recent small RCT that did not show any advantage to dilation over vibration therapy during radiotherapy; two non-randomised comparative studies; and five correlation studies. One of these showed that objective measurements of vaginal elasticity and length were not linked to dilation during radiotherapy, but the study lacked power. One study showed that women who dilated tolerated a larger dilator, but the risk of objectivity and bias with historical controls was high. Another study showed that the vaginal measurements increased in length by a mean of 3 cm after dilation was introduced 6 to 10 weeks after radiotherapy, but there was no control group; another case series showed the opposite. Three recent studies showed less stenosis associated with prophylactic dilation after radiotherapy. One small case series suggested that dilation years after radiotherapy might restore the vagina to a functional length. There is no reliable evidence to show that routine, regular vaginal dilation during radiotherapy treatment prevents stenosis or improves quality of life. Several observational studies have examined the effect of dilation therapy after radiotherapy. They suggest that frequent dilation practice is associated with lower rates of self reported stenosis. This could be because dilation is effective or because women with a healthy vagina are more likely to comply with dilation therapy instructions compared to women with strictures. We would normally suggest that a RCT is needed to distinguish between a casual and causative link, but pilot studies highlight many reasons why RCT methodology is challenging in this area. Output:
CochranePLS1668	[ { "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 search retrieved 1585 records; from those five studies were eligible, including 351 women (intervention = 166; control = 185). All studies were judged to be at high risk of bias. All reported per-woman rather than per-cycle data. When use of low-dose hCG to replace FSH was compared with conventional COH for the outcome of live birth, confidence intervals were very wide and findings were compatible with appreciable benefit, no effect or appreciable harm for the intervention (RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.75 to 3.25, 2 studies, 130 women, I² = 0%, very-low-quality evidence). This suggests that for women with a 14% chance of achieving live birth using conventional COH, the chance of achieving live birth using low-dose hCG would be between 10% and 45%. Similarly confidence intervals were very wide for the outcome of OHSS and findings were compatible with benefit, no effect or harm for the intervention (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.59, 5 studies, 351 women, I² = 59%, very-low-quality evidence). This suggests that for women with a 3% risk of OHSS using conventional COH, the risk using low-dose hCG would be between 0% and 4%. The confidence intervals were wide for the outcome of ongoing pregnancy and findings were compatible with benefit or no effect for the intervention (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.60, 3 studies, 252 women, I² = 0%, low-quality evidence). This suggests that for women with a 32% chance of achieving ongoing pregnancy using conventional COH, the chance using low-dose hCG would be between 27% and 53%. The confidence intervals were wide for the outcome of clinical pregnancy and findings were compatible with benefit or no effect for the intervention (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.55, 5 studies, 351 women, I² = 0%, low-quality evidence). This suggests that for women with a 35% chance of achieving clinical pregnancy using conventional COH, the chance using low-dose hCG would be between 32% and 54%. The confidence intervals were very wide for the outcome of miscarriage and findings were compatible with benefit, no effect or harm for the intervention (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.31, 3 studies, 127 pregnant women, I² = 0%, very-low-quality evidence). This suggests that for pregnant women with a 16% risk of miscarriage using conventional COH, the risk using low-dose hCG would be between 8% and 36%. The findings for the outcome of FSH consumption were compatible with benefit for the intervention (MD -639 IU, 95% CI -893 to -385, 5 studies, 333 women, I² = 88%, moderate-quality evidence). The findings for the outcome of number of oocytes retrieved were compatible with no effect for the intervention (MD -0.12 oocytes, 95% CI -1.0 to 0.8 oocytes, 5 studies, 351 women, I² = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). We are very uncertain of the effect on live birth, OHSS and miscarriage of using low-dose hCG to replace FSH during the late follicular phase of COH in women undergoing ART, compared to the use of conventional COH. The current evidence suggests that this intervention does not reduce the chance of ongoing and clinical pregnancy; and that it is likely to result in an equivalent number of oocytes retrieved expending less FSH. More studies are needed to strengthen the evidence regarding the effect of this intervention on important reproductive outcomes.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "Follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) - a relatively expensive drug - is commonly used for several days to stimulate the ovaries of women undergoing assisted reproduction. Initial studies have shown that after a few days of using FSH to stimulate the ovaries, it can be replaced by human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), which is less expensive. In addition to cost reduction, this intervention has a theoretical potential to reduce the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS); though the underlying risk is already very low for most women. We searched the medical literature on in February 2013 for studies that evaluated the effectiveness and safety of using low-dose hCG to replace FSH during the late follicular phase in women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) for assisted reproduction, compared to the use of a conventional COH protocol. Five studies evaluating 351 women were included in this review. These studies were funded by fertility centres, universities, or both. We are very uncertain of the effect of this intervention on live birth, OHSS and miscarriage When use of low-dose hCG to replace FSH was compared with conventional COH, there was very low quality evidence compatible with appreciable benefit, no effect or appreciable harm for the intervention, suggesting that for women with a 14% chance of achieving live birth using a conventional COH, the chance of achieving live birth using low-dose hCG would be between 10% and 45%. Similarly, there was very low quality evidence suggesting that for women with a 3% risk of OHSS using a conventional COH, the risk using low-dose hCG was also compatible with either benefit or harm, and would be between 0% and 4%. Additionally we observed that there was low quality evidence suggesting that for women with a 32% chance of achieving ongoing pregnancy using a conventional COH, the chance using low-dose hCG was compatible with either benefit or no effect, and would be between 27% and 53%. There was low quality evidence suggesting that for women with a 35% chance of achieving clinical pregnancy using a conventional COH, the chance using low-dose hCG was compatible with either benefit or no effect, and would be between 32% and 54%. There was very low quality evidence suggesting that for pregnant women with a 16% risk of miscarriage using a conventional COH, the risk using low-dose hCG was compatible with either benefit or harm, and would be between 8% and 36%. We also observed that there is moderate-quality evidence that this intervention reduces the total FSH consumption and is unlikely to materially affect the number of oocytes retrieved Our conclusions are that we are very uncertain of the effect on live birth, OHSS and miscarriage of using low-dose hCG to replace FSH during the late follicular phase of COH in women undergoing ART, compared to the use of conventional COH. The current evidence suggests that this intervention does not reduce the chance of ongoing and clinical pregnancy; and that it is likely to result in an equivalent number of oocytes retrieved expending less FSH. More studies are needed to strengthen the evidence regarding the effect of this intervention on important reproductive outcomes." } ]	*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 search retrieved 1585 records; from those five studies were eligible, including 351 women (intervention = 166; control = 185). All studies were judged to be at high risk of bias. All reported per-woman rather than per-cycle data. When use of low-dose hCG to replace FSH was compared with conventional COH for the outcome of live birth, confidence intervals were very wide and findings were compatible with appreciable benefit, no effect or appreciable harm for the intervention (RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.75 to 3.25, 2 studies, 130 women, I² = 0%, very-low-quality evidence). This suggests that for women with a 14% chance of achieving live birth using conventional COH, the chance of achieving live birth using low-dose hCG would be between 10% and 45%. Similarly confidence intervals were very wide for the outcome of OHSS and findings were compatible with benefit, no effect or harm for the intervention (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.59, 5 studies, 351 women, I² = 59%, very-low-quality evidence). This suggests that for women with a 3% risk of OHSS using conventional COH, the risk using low-dose hCG would be between 0% and 4%. The confidence intervals were wide for the outcome of ongoing pregnancy and findings were compatible with benefit or no effect for the intervention (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.60, 3 studies, 252 women, I² = 0%, low-quality evidence). This suggests that for women with a 32% chance of achieving ongoing pregnancy using conventional COH, the chance using low-dose hCG would be between 27% and 53%. The confidence intervals were wide for the outcome of clinical pregnancy and findings were compatible with benefit or no effect for the intervention (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.55, 5 studies, 351 women, I² = 0%, low-quality evidence). This suggests that for women with a 35% chance of achieving clinical pregnancy using conventional COH, the chance using low-dose hCG would be between 32% and 54%. The confidence intervals were very wide for the outcome of miscarriage and findings were compatible with benefit, no effect or harm for the intervention (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.31, 3 studies, 127 pregnant women, I² = 0%, very-low-quality evidence). This suggests that for pregnant women with a 16% risk of miscarriage using conventional COH, the risk using low-dose hCG would be between 8% and 36%. The findings for the outcome of FSH consumption were compatible with benefit for the intervention (MD -639 IU, 95% CI -893 to -385, 5 studies, 333 women, I² = 88%, moderate-quality evidence). The findings for the outcome of number of oocytes retrieved were compatible with no effect for the intervention (MD -0.12 oocytes, 95% CI -1.0 to 0.8 oocytes, 5 studies, 351 women, I² = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). We are very uncertain of the effect on live birth, OHSS and miscarriage of using low-dose hCG to replace FSH during the late follicular phase of COH in women undergoing ART, compared to the use of conventional COH. The current evidence suggests that this intervention does not reduce the chance of ongoing and clinical pregnancy; and that it is likely to result in an equivalent number of oocytes retrieved expending less FSH. More studies are needed to strengthen the evidence regarding the effect of this intervention on important reproductive outcomes. Output:
CochranePLS3131	[ { "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 20 studies that had analyzed a total of 1947 eyes of 1866 participants (individual studies ranged from 8 to 346 participants who were randomized). The studies were conducted in eight different countries: one in Brazil, three in China, three in Cuba, one in Egypt, two in Iran, two in Thailand, seven in Turkey, and one in Venezuela. Overall risk of bias was unclear, as many studies did not provide information on randomization methods or masking to prevent performance and detection bias. The risk ratio for recurrence of pterygium using conjunctival autograft versus amniotic membrane transplant was 0.87 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43 to 1.77) and 0.53 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.85) at 3 months and 6 months, respectively. These estimates include participants with primary and recurrent pterygia. We performed a subgroup analysis to compare participants with primary pterygia with participants with recurrent pterygia. For participants with primary pterygia, the risk ratio was 0.92 (95% CI 0.37 to 2.30) and 0.58 (95% CI 0.27 to 1.27) at 3 months and 6 months, respectively. We were only able to estimate the recurrence of pterygia at 6 months for participants with recurrent pterygia, and the risk ratio comparing conjunctival autograft with amniotic membrane transplant was 0.45 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.99). One included study was a doctoral thesis and did not use allocation concealment. When this study was excluded in a sensitivity analysis, the risk ratio for pterygium recurrence at 6 months' follow-up was 0.43 (95% CI 0.30 to 0.62) for participants with primary and recurrent pterygium. One of the secondary outcomes, the proportion of participants with clinical improvement, was analyzed in only one study. This study reported clinical outcome as the risk of non-recurrence, which was seen in 93.8% of participants in the conjunctival limbal autograft group and 93.3% in the amniotic membrane transplant group at 3 months after surgery. We did not analyze data on the need for repeat surgery, vision-related quality of life, and direct and indirect costs of surgery due to an insufficient number of studies reporting these outcomes. Thirteen studies reported adverse events associated with conjunctival autograft surgery and amniotic membrane transplant surgery. Adverse events that occurred in more than one study were granuloma and pyogenic granuloma and increased intraocular pressure. None of the included studies reported that participants had developed induced astigmatism. In association with pterygium excision, conjunctival autograft is associated with a lower risk of recurrence at six months' after surgery than amniotic membrane transplant. Participants with recurrent pterygia in particular have a lower risk of recurrence when they receive conjunctival autograft surgery compared with amniotic membrane transplant. There are few studies comparing the two techniques with respect to visual acuity outcomes, and we identified no studies that reported on vision-related quality of life or direct or indirect costs. Comparison of these two procedures in such outcome measures bears further investigation. There were an insufficient number of studies that used adjunctive mitomycin C to estimate the effects on pterygium recurrence following conjunctival autograft or amniotic membrane transplant.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "We considered the type of pterygium surgery to be better if it the pterygium returned in a smaller proportion of people at three and six months after the surgery. We searched online databases of published medical articles to find studies that had assigned participants to one of the two surgeries. We included in our review only the studies in which the participants were assigned randomly to their surgery, so that they had an equal chance of being assigned to either one. Study participants could have this growth for the first time (primary pterygium) or could need another surgery because their growth had returned previous surgery. The evidence is current to November 2015. We found 20 studies that compared the two surgeries in a total of 1947 eyes. We combined information from the studies to determine which surgery was better. Six months after surgery, the pterygium returned only one third to over half as often in people who had CAG surgery than in people who had AMT surgery. This difference could not be explained by chance alone. The studies we found did not answer all of our questions. We still want to know the effects of the surgeries on clarity of vision, quality of vision, quality of life and costs. More research studies are needed that answer these questions. The overall quality of the evidence in favor of CAG is low to moderate because of issues in the conduct of the studies and results were sometimes not similar across studies. Future published research may have an impact on the conclusions provided in this 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 identified 20 studies that had analyzed a total of 1947 eyes of 1866 participants (individual studies ranged from 8 to 346 participants who were randomized). The studies were conducted in eight different countries: one in Brazil, three in China, three in Cuba, one in Egypt, two in Iran, two in Thailand, seven in Turkey, and one in Venezuela. Overall risk of bias was unclear, as many studies did not provide information on randomization methods or masking to prevent performance and detection bias. The risk ratio for recurrence of pterygium using conjunctival autograft versus amniotic membrane transplant was 0.87 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43 to 1.77) and 0.53 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.85) at 3 months and 6 months, respectively. These estimates include participants with primary and recurrent pterygia. We performed a subgroup analysis to compare participants with primary pterygia with participants with recurrent pterygia. For participants with primary pterygia, the risk ratio was 0.92 (95% CI 0.37 to 2.30) and 0.58 (95% CI 0.27 to 1.27) at 3 months and 6 months, respectively. We were only able to estimate the recurrence of pterygia at 6 months for participants with recurrent pterygia, and the risk ratio comparing conjunctival autograft with amniotic membrane transplant was 0.45 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.99). One included study was a doctoral thesis and did not use allocation concealment. When this study was excluded in a sensitivity analysis, the risk ratio for pterygium recurrence at 6 months' follow-up was 0.43 (95% CI 0.30 to 0.62) for participants with primary and recurrent pterygium. One of the secondary outcomes, the proportion of participants with clinical improvement, was analyzed in only one study. This study reported clinical outcome as the risk of non-recurrence, which was seen in 93.8% of participants in the conjunctival limbal autograft group and 93.3% in the amniotic membrane transplant group at 3 months after surgery. We did not analyze data on the need for repeat surgery, vision-related quality of life, and direct and indirect costs of surgery due to an insufficient number of studies reporting these outcomes. Thirteen studies reported adverse events associated with conjunctival autograft surgery and amniotic membrane transplant surgery. Adverse events that occurred in more than one study were granuloma and pyogenic granuloma and increased intraocular pressure. None of the included studies reported that participants had developed induced astigmatism. In association with pterygium excision, conjunctival autograft is associated with a lower risk of recurrence at six months' after surgery than amniotic membrane transplant. Participants with recurrent pterygia in particular have a lower risk of recurrence when they receive conjunctival autograft surgery compared with amniotic membrane transplant. There are few studies comparing the two techniques with respect to visual acuity outcomes, and we identified no studies that reported on vision-related quality of life or direct or indirect costs. Comparison of these two procedures in such outcome measures bears further investigation. There were an insufficient number of studies that used adjunctive mitomycin C to estimate the effects on pterygium recurrence following conjunctival autograft or amniotic membrane transplant. Output:
CochranePLS2140	[ { "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 20 RCTs, including 3057 participants. The number of participants ranged per trial between 15 and 645. Follow-up ranged between 24 weeks and two years. Eighteen trials were parallel RCTs and two were cluster RCTs. Twelve RCTs had two comparisons and eight RCTs had three comparisons. The interventions varied widely; the duration, content, delivery and follow-up of the interventions were heterogeneous. The comparators also differed. This review categorised the comparisons into four groups: parent-only versus parent-child, parent-only versus waiting list controls, parent-only versus minimal contact interventions and parent-only versus other parent-only interventions. Trial quality was generally low with a large proportion of trials rated as high risk of bias on individual risk of bias criteria. In trials comparing a parent-only intervention with a parent-child intervention, the body mass index (BMI) z score change showed a mean difference (MD) at the longest follow-up period (10 to 24 months) of -0.04 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.15 to 0.08); P = 0.56; 267 participants; 3 trials; low quality evidence. In trials comparing a parent-only intervention with a waiting list control, the BMI z score change in favour of the parent-only intervention at the longest follow-up period (10-12 months) had an MD of -0.10 (95% CI -0.19 to -0.01); P = 0.04; 136 participants; 2 trials; low quality evidence. BMI z score change of parent-only interventions when compared with minimal contact control interventions at the longest follow-up period (9 to 12 months) showed an MD of 0.01 (95% CI -0.07 to 0.09); P = 0.81; 165 participants; 1 trial; low quality evidence. There were few similarities between interventions and comparators across the included trials in the parent-only intervention versus other parent-only interventions and we did not pool these data. Generally, these trials did not show substantial differences between their respective parent-only groups on BMI outcomes. Other outcomes such as behavioural measures, parent-child relationships and health-related quality of life were reported inconsistently. Adverse effects of the interventions were generally not reported, two trials stated that there were no serious adverse effects. No trials reported on all-cause mortality, morbidity or socioeconomic effects. All results need to be interpreted cautiously because of their low quality, the heterogeneous interventions and comparators, and the high rates of non-completion. Parent-only interventions may be an effective treatment option for overweight or obese children aged 5 to 11 years when compared with waiting list controls. Parent-only interventions had similar effects compared with parent-child interventions and compared with those with minimal contact controls. However, the evidence is at present limited; some of the trials had a high risk of bias with loss to follow-up being a particular issue and there was a lack of evidence for several important outcomes. The systematic review has identified 10 ongoing trials that have a parent-only arm, which will contribute to future updates. These trials will improve the robustness of the analyses by type of comparator, and may permit subgroup analysis by intervention component and the setting. Trial reports should provide adequate details about the interventions to be replicated by others. There is a need to conduct and report cost-effectiveness analyses in future trials in order to establish whether parent-only interventions are more cost-effective than parent-child interventions.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "We found 20 randomised controlled trials (clinical studies where people are randomly put into one of two or more treatment groups) comparing diet, physical activity and behavioural (where habits are changed or improved) treatments (interventions) to a variety of control groups (who did not receive treatment) delivered to parents only of 3057 children aged 5 to 11 years. There were few similarities between the trials in the nature and types of interventions used. We grouped the trials by the type of comparisons. Our systematic review reported on the effects of the parent-only interventions compared with parent and child interventions, waiting list controls (where the intervention was delayed until the end of the trial), other interventions with only minimal information or contact and other types of parent-only interventions. The children in the included trials were monitored (called follow-up) for between six months and two years. This evidence is up to date as of March 2015. The most reported outcome was the body mass index (BMI). This is a measure of body fat and is calculated by dividing weight (in kilograms) by the square of the body height measured in metres (kg/m2). The studies measured BMI in ways that took account of gender, weight and height as the children grew older (such as the BMI z score and the BMI percentile). When compared with a waiting list control, there was limited evidence that parental interventions helped to reduce BMI. In looking at the longest follow-up periods of the included trials, we did not find firm evidence of an advantage or disadvantage of parent-only interventions when compared with either parent and child interventions, or when compared with limited information. Our review found very little information about how different types of parental interventions compared. No trial reported on death from any cause, illness or socioeconomic effects (such as whether parent-only interventions are lower in costs compared with parent and child interventions). Two trials reported no serious side effects and the rest of the trials did not report whether side effects occurred or not. Information on parent-child relationships and health-related quality of life was rarely reported. The overall quality of the evidence was low, mainly because there were just a few trials per measurement or the number of the included children was small. In addition, many children left the trials before they had finished." } ]	*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 20 RCTs, including 3057 participants. The number of participants ranged per trial between 15 and 645. Follow-up ranged between 24 weeks and two years. Eighteen trials were parallel RCTs and two were cluster RCTs. Twelve RCTs had two comparisons and eight RCTs had three comparisons. The interventions varied widely; the duration, content, delivery and follow-up of the interventions were heterogeneous. The comparators also differed. This review categorised the comparisons into four groups: parent-only versus parent-child, parent-only versus waiting list controls, parent-only versus minimal contact interventions and parent-only versus other parent-only interventions. Trial quality was generally low with a large proportion of trials rated as high risk of bias on individual risk of bias criteria. In trials comparing a parent-only intervention with a parent-child intervention, the body mass index (BMI) z score change showed a mean difference (MD) at the longest follow-up period (10 to 24 months) of -0.04 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.15 to 0.08); P = 0.56; 267 participants; 3 trials; low quality evidence. In trials comparing a parent-only intervention with a waiting list control, the BMI z score change in favour of the parent-only intervention at the longest follow-up period (10-12 months) had an MD of -0.10 (95% CI -0.19 to -0.01); P = 0.04; 136 participants; 2 trials; low quality evidence. BMI z score change of parent-only interventions when compared with minimal contact control interventions at the longest follow-up period (9 to 12 months) showed an MD of 0.01 (95% CI -0.07 to 0.09); P = 0.81; 165 participants; 1 trial; low quality evidence. There were few similarities between interventions and comparators across the included trials in the parent-only intervention versus other parent-only interventions and we did not pool these data. Generally, these trials did not show substantial differences between their respective parent-only groups on BMI outcomes. Other outcomes such as behavioural measures, parent-child relationships and health-related quality of life were reported inconsistently. Adverse effects of the interventions were generally not reported, two trials stated that there were no serious adverse effects. No trials reported on all-cause mortality, morbidity or socioeconomic effects. All results need to be interpreted cautiously because of their low quality, the heterogeneous interventions and comparators, and the high rates of non-completion. Parent-only interventions may be an effective treatment option for overweight or obese children aged 5 to 11 years when compared with waiting list controls. Parent-only interventions had similar effects compared with parent-child interventions and compared with those with minimal contact controls. However, the evidence is at present limited; some of the trials had a high risk of bias with loss to follow-up being a particular issue and there was a lack of evidence for several important outcomes. The systematic review has identified 10 ongoing trials that have a parent-only arm, which will contribute to future updates. These trials will improve the robustness of the analyses by type of comparator, and may permit subgroup analysis by intervention component and the setting. Trial reports should provide adequate details about the interventions to be replicated by others. There is a need to conduct and report cost-effectiveness analyses in future trials in order to establish whether parent-only interventions are more cost-effective than parent-child interventions. Output:
CochranePLS2583	[ { "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-five RCTs (2310 participants) were included in the review. Fourteen studies were judged to be at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding, incomplete outcome data and selective reporting. Meta-analysis of two studies (101 patients) comparing polyethylene glycol (PEG) with placebo showed a significantly increased number of stools per week with PEG (MD 2.61 stools per week, 95% CI 1.15 to 4.08). Common adverse events in the placebo-controlled studies included flatulence, abdominal pain, nausea, diarrhoea and headache. Participants receiving high dose PEG (0.7 g/kg) had significantly more stools per week than low dose PEG (0.3 g/kg) participants (1 study, 90 participants, MD 1.30, 95% 0.76 to 1.84). Meta-analysis of 6 studies with 465 participants comparing PEG with lactulose showed a significantly greater number of stools per week with PEG (MD 0.70 , 95% CI 0.10 to 1.31), although follow-up was short. Patients who received PEG were significantly less likely to require additional laxative therapies. Eighteen per cent (27/154) of PEG patients required additional therapies compared to 31% (47/150) of lactulose patients (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.83). No serious adverse events were reported with either agent. Common adverse events in these studies included diarrhoea, abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting and pruritis ani. Meta-analysis of 3 studies with 211 participants comparing PEG with milk of magnesia showed that the stools per week were significantly greater with PEG (MD 0.69, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.89). However, the magnitude of this difference was quite small and may not be clinically significant. One child was noted to be allergic to PEG, but there were no other serious adverse events reported. One study found a significant difference in stools per week favouring milk of magnesia over lactulose (MD -1.51, 95% CI -2.63 to -0.39, 50 patients), Meta-analysis of 2 studies with 287 patients comparing liquid paraffin (mineral oil) with lactulose revealed a relatively large statistically significant difference in the number of stools per week favouring liquid paraffin (MD 4.94 , 95% CI 4.28 to 5.61). No serious adverse events were reported. Adverse events included abdominal pain, distention and watery stools. No statistically significant differences in the number of stools per week were found between PEG and enemas (1 study, 90 patients, MD 1.00, 95% CI -1.58 to 3.58), dietary fibre mix and lactulose (1 study, 125 patients, P = 0.481), senna and lactulose (1 study, 21 patients, P > 0.05), lactitol and lactulose (1 study, 51 patients, MD -0.80, 95% CI -2.63 to 1.03), hydrolyzed guar gum and lactulose (1 study, 61 patients, MD 1.00, 95% CI -1.80 to 3.80), PEG and flixweed (1 study, 109 patients, MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.33), PEG and dietary fibre (1 study, 83 patients, MD 0.20, 95% CI -0.64 to 1.04), and PEG and liquid paraffin (2 studies, 261 patients, MD 0.35, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.95). The pooled analyses suggest that PEG preparations may be superior to placebo, lactulose and milk of magnesia for childhood constipation. GRADE analyses indicated that the overall quality of the evidence for the primary outcome (number of stools per week) was low or very low due to sparse data, inconsistency (heterogeneity), and high risk of bias in the studies in the pooled analyses. Thus, the results of the pooled analyses should be interpreted with caution because of quality and methodological concerns, as well as clinical heterogeneity, and short follow-up. There is also evidence suggesting the efficacy of liquid paraffin (mineral oil). There is no evidence to demonstrate the superiority of lactulose when compared to the other agents studied, although there is a lack of placebo controlled studies. Further research is needed to investigate the long term use of PEG for childhood constipation, as well as the role of liquid paraffin. The optimal dose of PEG also warrants further investigation.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "This review included 25 studies with a total of 2310 children that compared ten different agents to either placebo (inactive medications) or each other. Many of the studies were small in size and were judged to be of poor or unclear quality. The results of this review suggest that PEG preparations may increase the frequency of bowel movements in constipated children. There is evidence from one study that suggests that high dose PEG (0.7 g/kg) may be superior to low dose PEG (0.3 g/kg) for increasing the frequency of bowel movements in constipated children. The rates of minor side effects were generally lower compared to other agents. Common side effects included flatulence, abdominal pain, nausea, diarrhoea and headache. There was also some evidence that liquid paraffin (mineral oil) increased the frequency of bowel movements in constipated children. Common side effects with liquid paraffin included abdominal pain, distention and watery stools. There was no evidence to suggest that lactulose is superior to the other agents studied, although there were no trials comparing it to placebo (a fake medicine such as a sugar pill). These studies were relatively short in duration and so it is difficult to assess the long term effectiveness of these agents for the treatment of childhood constipation. Long term effectiveness is important, given the often chronic nature of this problem in children. The results of the review should be interpreted with caution due to quality issues in the included studies. As such, the strength of our conclusions is extremely limited and more research is needed. Key questions that need addressing include the safety of liquid paraffin, given its apparent effectiveness, but limited investigation. In particular, future research should compare liquid paraffin to PEG. The optimal dose of PEG warrants further investigation. The role of PEG for the long term management of chronic constipation also needs further investigation to allow research to better inform actual clinical practice. There is a lack of studies comparing lactulose with placebo." } ]	*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-five RCTs (2310 participants) were included in the review. Fourteen studies were judged to be at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding, incomplete outcome data and selective reporting. Meta-analysis of two studies (101 patients) comparing polyethylene glycol (PEG) with placebo showed a significantly increased number of stools per week with PEG (MD 2.61 stools per week, 95% CI 1.15 to 4.08). Common adverse events in the placebo-controlled studies included flatulence, abdominal pain, nausea, diarrhoea and headache. Participants receiving high dose PEG (0.7 g/kg) had significantly more stools per week than low dose PEG (0.3 g/kg) participants (1 study, 90 participants, MD 1.30, 95% 0.76 to 1.84). Meta-analysis of 6 studies with 465 participants comparing PEG with lactulose showed a significantly greater number of stools per week with PEG (MD 0.70 , 95% CI 0.10 to 1.31), although follow-up was short. Patients who received PEG were significantly less likely to require additional laxative therapies. Eighteen per cent (27/154) of PEG patients required additional therapies compared to 31% (47/150) of lactulose patients (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.83). No serious adverse events were reported with either agent. Common adverse events in these studies included diarrhoea, abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting and pruritis ani. Meta-analysis of 3 studies with 211 participants comparing PEG with milk of magnesia showed that the stools per week were significantly greater with PEG (MD 0.69, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.89). However, the magnitude of this difference was quite small and may not be clinically significant. One child was noted to be allergic to PEG, but there were no other serious adverse events reported. One study found a significant difference in stools per week favouring milk of magnesia over lactulose (MD -1.51, 95% CI -2.63 to -0.39, 50 patients), Meta-analysis of 2 studies with 287 patients comparing liquid paraffin (mineral oil) with lactulose revealed a relatively large statistically significant difference in the number of stools per week favouring liquid paraffin (MD 4.94 , 95% CI 4.28 to 5.61). No serious adverse events were reported. Adverse events included abdominal pain, distention and watery stools. No statistically significant differences in the number of stools per week were found between PEG and enemas (1 study, 90 patients, MD 1.00, 95% CI -1.58 to 3.58), dietary fibre mix and lactulose (1 study, 125 patients, P = 0.481), senna and lactulose (1 study, 21 patients, P > 0.05), lactitol and lactulose (1 study, 51 patients, MD -0.80, 95% CI -2.63 to 1.03), hydrolyzed guar gum and lactulose (1 study, 61 patients, MD 1.00, 95% CI -1.80 to 3.80), PEG and flixweed (1 study, 109 patients, MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.33), PEG and dietary fibre (1 study, 83 patients, MD 0.20, 95% CI -0.64 to 1.04), and PEG and liquid paraffin (2 studies, 261 patients, MD 0.35, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.95). The pooled analyses suggest that PEG preparations may be superior to placebo, lactulose and milk of magnesia for childhood constipation. GRADE analyses indicated that the overall quality of the evidence for the primary outcome (number of stools per week) was low or very low due to sparse data, inconsistency (heterogeneity), and high risk of bias in the studies in the pooled analyses. Thus, the results of the pooled analyses should be interpreted with caution because of quality and methodological concerns, as well as clinical heterogeneity, and short follow-up. There is also evidence suggesting the efficacy of liquid paraffin (mineral oil). There is no evidence to demonstrate the superiority of lactulose when compared to the other agents studied, although there is a lack of placebo controlled studies. Further research is needed to investigate the long term use of PEG for childhood constipation, as well as the role of liquid paraffin. The optimal dose of PEG also warrants further investigation. Output:
CochranePLS2947	[ { "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 searches identified two multicentre, randomized, double-blind controlled clinical trials eligible for inclusion in the review with a total of 78 participants (adults and children); one trial was done in people who were clinically stable, the other in people experiencing pulmonary exacerbations. These trials prospectively assessed whether the use of biofilm antimicrobial susceptibility testing improved microbiological and clinical outcomes in participants with cystic fibrosis who were infected with Pseudomonas aeruginosa. The primary outcome was the change in sputum Pseudomonas aeruginosa density from the beginning to the end of antibiotic therapy. Although the intervention was shown to be safe, the data from these two trials did not provide evidence that biofilm susceptibility testing was superior to conventional susceptibility testing either in terms of microbiological or lung function outcomes. One of the trials also measured risk and time to subsequent exacerbation as well as quality of life measures and did not demonstrate any difference between groups in these outcomes. Both trials had an overall low risk of bias and the quality of the evidence using GRADE criteria was deemed to be moderate to high for the outcomes selected. The current evidence is insufficient to recommend choosing antibiotics based on biofilm antimicrobial susceptibility testing rather than conventional antimicrobial susceptibility testing in the treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa pulmonary infections in people with cystic fibrosis. Biofilm antimicrobial susceptibility testing may be more appropriate in the development of newer, more effective formulations of drugs which can then be tested in clinical trials.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "We included two trials, one run in the USA (in people who were clinically stable) and one run in Canada (in people who were having an exacerbation or respiratory flare up). A total of 78 people from these trials gave sputum samples. Bacteria from these samples were grown in either a liquid (34 samples) or biofilm (44 samples) with an equal chance of being grown in either one. Neither the individuals or their clinicians knew before or during the trial which method had been used for the sample from each person. A mixture of adults and children took part in the trials, with the average age being around 20 to 30 years. There were an equal number of men and women in both trials. Around half the people in the trials had two copies of the delta F508 gene and there were almost equal number of these in each group. Average lung function in both groups was similar. The main outcome of both trials was the decrease in the amount of bacteria in the sputum of people in each group after antibiotic treatment. There was no difference in the levels of bacteria found in the sputum or in the improvement in lung function between the two groups in either trial. In both trials, there was a similar number of individuals in each group who had either a mild or moderate side effect. There were no serious side effects reported by anyone in either study. The evidence does not show that one method of testing is better than the other and that people receiving antibiotics chosen on the basis of either method have equal chances of any side effects. The quality of the evidence was quite good as people had equal chances of being in either group and they did not know which testing group they were in. This means we don't think the trial results would have been affected because of this." } ]	*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 searches identified two multicentre, randomized, double-blind controlled clinical trials eligible for inclusion in the review with a total of 78 participants (adults and children); one trial was done in people who were clinically stable, the other in people experiencing pulmonary exacerbations. These trials prospectively assessed whether the use of biofilm antimicrobial susceptibility testing improved microbiological and clinical outcomes in participants with cystic fibrosis who were infected with Pseudomonas aeruginosa. The primary outcome was the change in sputum Pseudomonas aeruginosa density from the beginning to the end of antibiotic therapy. Although the intervention was shown to be safe, the data from these two trials did not provide evidence that biofilm susceptibility testing was superior to conventional susceptibility testing either in terms of microbiological or lung function outcomes. One of the trials also measured risk and time to subsequent exacerbation as well as quality of life measures and did not demonstrate any difference between groups in these outcomes. Both trials had an overall low risk of bias and the quality of the evidence using GRADE criteria was deemed to be moderate to high for the outcomes selected. The current evidence is insufficient to recommend choosing antibiotics based on biofilm antimicrobial susceptibility testing rather than conventional antimicrobial susceptibility testing in the treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa pulmonary infections in people with cystic fibrosis. Biofilm antimicrobial susceptibility testing may be more appropriate in the development of newer, more effective formulations of drugs which can then be tested in clinical trials. Output:
CochranePLS3555	[ { "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 nine RCTs (587 participants) for inclusion in the review, of which three studies were found at this update. The sequence generation was inadequate in one study and not described in three studies. We performed two meta-analyses to evaluate the clinical (3 trials, 261 participants) and neurophysiological (2 trials, 101 participants) outcomes of simple decompression versus decompression with submuscular or subcutaneous transposition; four trials in total examined this comparison. We found no difference between simple decompression and transposition of the ulnar nerve for both clinical improvement (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.08; moderate-quality evidence) and neurophysiological improvement (mean difference (in m/s) 1.47, 95% CI -0.94 to 3.87). The number of participants to clinically improve was 91 out of 131 in the simple decompression group and 97 out of 130 in the transposition group. Transposition showed a higher number of wound infections (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.85; moderate-quality evidence). In one trial (47 participants), the authors compared medial epicondylectomy with anterior transposition and found no difference in clinical and neurophysiological outcomes. In one trial (48 participants), the investigators compared subcutaneous transposition with submuscular transposition and found no difference in clinical outcomes. In one trial (54 participants for 56 nerves treated), the authors found no difference between endoscopic and open decompression in improving clinical function. One trial (51 participants) assessed conservative treatment in clinically mild or moderate UNE. Based on low-quality evidence, the trial authors found that information on avoiding prolonged movements or positions was effective in improving subjective discomfort. Night splinting and nerve gliding exercises in addition to information provision did not result in further improvement. One trial (55 participants) assessed the effectiveness of corticosteroid injection and found no difference versus placebo in improving symptoms at three months' follow-up. We found only two studies of treatment of ulnar neuropathy using conservative treatment as the comparator. The available comparative treatment evidence is not sufficient to support a multiple treatment meta-analysis to identify the best treatment for idiopathic UNE on the basis of clinical, neurophysiological, and imaging characteristics. We do not know when to treat a person with this condition conservatively or surgically. Moderate-quality evidence indicates that simple decompression and decompression with transposition are equally effective in idiopathic UNE, including when the nerve impairment is severe. Decompression with transposition is associated with more deep and superficial wound infections than simple decompression, also based on moderate-quality evidence. People undergoing endoscopic surgery were more likely to have a haematoma. Evidence from one small RCT of conservative treatment showed that in mild cases, information on movements or positions to avoid may reduce subjective discomfort.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "We found two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of nonsurgical treatment. One RCT compared three groups of people with mild or moderate UNE (51 people in total). All three groups received written instructions to avoid movements or positions that provoked symptoms. The second group had the same information with elbow splints at night for three months. The third group had the same information with nerve gliding exercises. The other nonsurgical study (55 people) compared a corticosteroid injection with a sham injection. Seven RCTs compared different surgical methods: • simple decompression or transposition of the nerve (submuscular or subcutaneous transposition) (4 trials, 327 participants); • medial epicondylectomy or anterior transposition (1 trial, 47 participants); • anterior subcutaneous transposition or anterior submuscular transposition (1 trial, 48 participants); • keyhole or open surgery (1 trial, 54 participants with 56 trapped nerves). Written information alone was as effective in improving work activities and reducing pain at night as when people also used splints or did exercises. Researchers found no evidence that corticosteroid injection was effective in improving symptoms of UNE. We were able to combine results from three trials comparing two surgical techniques: simple decompression and transposition of the ulnar nerve (subcutaneous or submuscular). We found no important difference in symptom scores between the techniques at 6 to 12 months. Decompression with transposition may result in more deep and superficial wound infections. Trialists found no clinical differences between surgical techniques in the other surgical trials. People undergoing endoscopic surgery were more likely to have a haematoma (an abnormal collection of blood) after surgery. Evidence was insufficient for us to choose the best treatment for UNE. However, we did find that in mild cases, information on movements and positions to avoid may reduce discomfort. Moreover, the combined results from three surgical trials provided moderate-quality evidence that simple decompression surgery and decompression with transposition may be equally effective, but that decompression with transposition may result in more deep and superficial wound infections. The evidence is up to date to 31 May 2016." } ]	*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 nine RCTs (587 participants) for inclusion in the review, of which three studies were found at this update. The sequence generation was inadequate in one study and not described in three studies. We performed two meta-analyses to evaluate the clinical (3 trials, 261 participants) and neurophysiological (2 trials, 101 participants) outcomes of simple decompression versus decompression with submuscular or subcutaneous transposition; four trials in total examined this comparison. We found no difference between simple decompression and transposition of the ulnar nerve for both clinical improvement (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.08; moderate-quality evidence) and neurophysiological improvement (mean difference (in m/s) 1.47, 95% CI -0.94 to 3.87). The number of participants to clinically improve was 91 out of 131 in the simple decompression group and 97 out of 130 in the transposition group. Transposition showed a higher number of wound infections (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.85; moderate-quality evidence). In one trial (47 participants), the authors compared medial epicondylectomy with anterior transposition and found no difference in clinical and neurophysiological outcomes. In one trial (48 participants), the investigators compared subcutaneous transposition with submuscular transposition and found no difference in clinical outcomes. In one trial (54 participants for 56 nerves treated), the authors found no difference between endoscopic and open decompression in improving clinical function. One trial (51 participants) assessed conservative treatment in clinically mild or moderate UNE. Based on low-quality evidence, the trial authors found that information on avoiding prolonged movements or positions was effective in improving subjective discomfort. Night splinting and nerve gliding exercises in addition to information provision did not result in further improvement. One trial (55 participants) assessed the effectiveness of corticosteroid injection and found no difference versus placebo in improving symptoms at three months' follow-up. We found only two studies of treatment of ulnar neuropathy using conservative treatment as the comparator. The available comparative treatment evidence is not sufficient to support a multiple treatment meta-analysis to identify the best treatment for idiopathic UNE on the basis of clinical, neurophysiological, and imaging characteristics. We do not know when to treat a person with this condition conservatively or surgically. Moderate-quality evidence indicates that simple decompression and decompression with transposition are equally effective in idiopathic UNE, including when the nerve impairment is severe. Decompression with transposition is associated with more deep and superficial wound infections than simple decompression, also based on moderate-quality evidence. People undergoing endoscopic surgery were more likely to have a haematoma. Evidence from one small RCT of conservative treatment showed that in mild cases, information on movements or positions to avoid may reduce subjective discomfort. Output:
CochranePLS1507	[ { "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 RCTs that fulfilled the above criteria, with a total of 119 participants. The beta blockers studied were atenolol, propranolol, pindolol and metoprolol. All trials were of poor quality with the drugs administered over a short time (10 days to two months). None of the primary outcomes were reported by more than one study. Similarly, secondary outcome measures, with the exception of vascular resistance (as reported by three studies), were reported, each by only one study. Pooling of such results was deemed inappropriate. None of the trials showed a statistically significant worsening effect of beta blockers on time to claudication, claudication distance and maximal walking distance as measured on a treadmill, nor on calf blood flow, calf vascular resistance and skin temperature, when compared with placebo. No reports described adverse events associated with the beta blockers studied. Currently, no evidence suggests that beta blockers adversely affect walking distance, calf blood flow, calf vascular resistance and skin temperature in people with intermittent claudication. However, because of the lack of large published trials, beta blockers should be used with caution, if clinically indicated.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "Currently, no evidence from randomised controlled trials suggests that beta blockers adversely affect walking distance in people with intermittent claudication, and beta blockers should be used with caution, if clinically indicated. The review authors identified six randomised controlled trials that involved a total of only 119 people with mild to moderate peripheral arterial disease. The beta blockers studied were propranolol, pindolol, atenolol and metoprolol. None of the trials showed clear worsening effects of beta blockers on time to claudication, claudication distance and maximal walking distance as measured on a treadmill, nor on calf blood flow, calf vascular resistance and skin temperature, when compared with placebo. Trial investigators reported no adverse events or issues regarding taking the beta blockers studied. Most of the trials were over 20 years old and reported findings between 1980 and 1991. All were small and of poor quality. The drugs were administered over a short time (10 days to two months), and most of the outcome measures were reported in single studies. Additional drugs－calcium channel blockers and combined alpha and beta blockers－were given during some of the 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: We included six RCTs that fulfilled the above criteria, with a total of 119 participants. The beta blockers studied were atenolol, propranolol, pindolol and metoprolol. All trials were of poor quality with the drugs administered over a short time (10 days to two months). None of the primary outcomes were reported by more than one study. Similarly, secondary outcome measures, with the exception of vascular resistance (as reported by three studies), were reported, each by only one study. Pooling of such results was deemed inappropriate. None of the trials showed a statistically significant worsening effect of beta blockers on time to claudication, claudication distance and maximal walking distance as measured on a treadmill, nor on calf blood flow, calf vascular resistance and skin temperature, when compared with placebo. No reports described adverse events associated with the beta blockers studied. Currently, no evidence suggests that beta blockers adversely affect walking distance, calf blood flow, calf vascular resistance and skin temperature in people with intermittent claudication. However, because of the lack of large published trials, beta blockers should be used with caution, if clinically indicated. Output:
CochranePLS2852	[ { "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 search identified 604 potentially relevant studies. Of these, 14 studies (15 interventions) were RCTs and met our inclusion criteria. The numbers of participants were 352, 138 and 1745 for aspirin, steroid and NSAIDs groups, respectively. One selected study comprised two separate interventions. Interventions assessed in these studies were grouped into four categories: aspirin (three interventions), steroids (one intervention), traditional NSAIDs (six interventions), and selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors (five interventions). All studies were evaluated for internal validity using a risk of bias assessment tool. The risk of bias was low for five studies, high for seven studies, and unclear for two studies.There was no significant improvement in cognitive decline for aspirin, steroid, traditional NSAIDs and selective COX-2 inhibitors. Compared to controls, patients receiving aspirin experienced more bleeding while patients receiving steroid experienced more hyperglycaemia, abnormal lab results and face edema. Patients receiving NSAIDs experienced nausea, vomiting, elevated creatinine, elevated LFT and hypertension. A trend towards higher death rates was observed among patients treated with NSAIDS compared with placebo and this was somewhat higher for selective COX-2 inhibitors than for traditional NSAIDs. Based on the studies carried out so far, the efficacy of aspirin, steroid and NSAIDs (traditional NSAIDs and COX-2 inhibitors) is not proven. Therefore, these drugs cannot be recommended for the treatment of AD.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "Fourteen studies met our inclusion criteria for this review and none of the exclusion criteria. Aspirin, steroid and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (traditional and the selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors) showed no significant benefit in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease. Therefore, the use of these drugs cannot be recommended for the treatment of Alzheimer's 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: Our search identified 604 potentially relevant studies. Of these, 14 studies (15 interventions) were RCTs and met our inclusion criteria. The numbers of participants were 352, 138 and 1745 for aspirin, steroid and NSAIDs groups, respectively. One selected study comprised two separate interventions. Interventions assessed in these studies were grouped into four categories: aspirin (three interventions), steroids (one intervention), traditional NSAIDs (six interventions), and selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors (five interventions). All studies were evaluated for internal validity using a risk of bias assessment tool. The risk of bias was low for five studies, high for seven studies, and unclear for two studies.There was no significant improvement in cognitive decline for aspirin, steroid, traditional NSAIDs and selective COX-2 inhibitors. Compared to controls, patients receiving aspirin experienced more bleeding while patients receiving steroid experienced more hyperglycaemia, abnormal lab results and face edema. Patients receiving NSAIDs experienced nausea, vomiting, elevated creatinine, elevated LFT and hypertension. A trend towards higher death rates was observed among patients treated with NSAIDS compared with placebo and this was somewhat higher for selective COX-2 inhibitors than for traditional NSAIDs. Based on the studies carried out so far, the efficacy of aspirin, steroid and NSAIDs (traditional NSAIDs and COX-2 inhibitors) is not proven. Therefore, these drugs cannot be recommended for the treatment of AD. Output:
CochranePLS3403	[ { "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 48 studies that involved 4937 participants and covered three types of programme: behavioural, cognitive-behavioural and multimodal. Overall, we found that group-based parenting programmes led to statistically significant short-term improvements in depression (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.28 to -0.07), anxiety (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.43 to -0.01), stress (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -0.42 to -0.15), anger (SMD -0.60, 95% CI -1.00 to -0.20), guilt (SMD -0.79, 95% CI -1.18 to -0.41), confidence (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.17) and satisfaction with the partner relationship (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.09). However, only stress and confidence continued to be statistically significant at six month follow-up, and none were significant at one year. There was no evidence of any effect on self-esteem (SMD -0.01, 95% CI -0.45 to 0.42). None of the trials reported on aggression or adverse effects. The limited data that explicitly focused on outcomes for fathers showed a statistically significant short-term improvement in paternal stress (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.79 to -0.06). We were unable to combine data for other outcomes and individual study results were inconclusive in terms of any effect on depressive symptoms, confidence or partner satisfaction. The findings of this review support the use of parenting programmes to improve the short-term psychosocial wellbeing of parents. Further input may be required to ensure that these results are maintained. More research is needed that explicitly addresses the benefits for fathers, and that examines the comparative effectiveness of different types of programme along with the mechanisms by which such programmes bring about improvements in parental psychosocial functioning.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "We included a total of 48 studies that involved 4937 participants and covered three types of programme: behavioural, cognitive-behavioural and multimodal. Overall, the results suggested statistically significant improvements in the short-term for parental depression, anxiety, stress, anger, guilt, confidence and satisfaction with the partner relationship. However, only stress and confidence continued to be statistically significant at six month follow-up, and none were significant at one year. There was no evidence of effectiveness for self-esteem at any time point. None of the studies reported aggression or adverse outcomes. Only four studies reported the outcomes for fathers separately. These limited data showed a statistically significant short-term improvement in paternal stress but did not show whether the parenting programmes were helpful in terms of improving depressive symptoms, confidence or partner satisfaction. This review shows evidence of the short-term benefits of parenting programmes on depression, anxiety, stress, anger, guilt, confidence and satisfaction with the partner relationship. The findings suggest that further input may be needed to support parents to maintain these benefits. However, more research is needed that explicitly addresses the benefits for fathers, and that provides evidence of the comparative effectiveness of different types of programme and identifies the mechanisms involved in bringing about change." } ]	*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 48 studies that involved 4937 participants and covered three types of programme: behavioural, cognitive-behavioural and multimodal. Overall, we found that group-based parenting programmes led to statistically significant short-term improvements in depression (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.28 to -0.07), anxiety (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.43 to -0.01), stress (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -0.42 to -0.15), anger (SMD -0.60, 95% CI -1.00 to -0.20), guilt (SMD -0.79, 95% CI -1.18 to -0.41), confidence (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.17) and satisfaction with the partner relationship (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.09). However, only stress and confidence continued to be statistically significant at six month follow-up, and none were significant at one year. There was no evidence of any effect on self-esteem (SMD -0.01, 95% CI -0.45 to 0.42). None of the trials reported on aggression or adverse effects. The limited data that explicitly focused on outcomes for fathers showed a statistically significant short-term improvement in paternal stress (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.79 to -0.06). We were unable to combine data for other outcomes and individual study results were inconclusive in terms of any effect on depressive symptoms, confidence or partner satisfaction. The findings of this review support the use of parenting programmes to improve the short-term psychosocial wellbeing of parents. Further input may be required to ensure that these results are maintained. More research is needed that explicitly addresses the benefits for fathers, and that examines the comparative effectiveness of different types of programme along with the mechanisms by which such programmes bring about improvements in parental psychosocial functioning. Output:
CochranePLS814	[ { "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: No new trials were included in this 2014 update. We included six studies: two prophylaxis trials (327 young to middle-aged adults in Russia) and four treatment trials (1196 teenagers and adults in France and Germany). The overall standard of trial reporting was poor and hence many important methodological aspects of the trials had unclear risk of bias. There was no statistically significant difference between the effects of Oscillococcinum® and placebo in the prevention of influenza-like illness: risk ratio (RR) 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 1.34, P value = 0.16. Two treatment trials (judged as 'low quality') reported sufficient information to allow full data extraction: 48 hours after commencing treatment, there was an absolute risk reduction of 7.7% in the frequency of symptom relief with Oscillococcinum® compared with that of placebo (risk difference (RD) 0.077, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.12); the RR was 1.86 (95% CI 1.27 to 2.73; P value = 0.001). A significant but lesser effect was observed at three days (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.56; P value = 0.03), and no significant difference between the groups was noted at four days (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.27; P value = 0.10) or at five days (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.16; P value = 0.25). One of the six studies reported one patient who suffered an adverse effect (headache) from taking Oscillococcinum®. There is insufficient good evidence to enable robust conclusions to be made about Oscillococcinum® in the prevention or treatment of influenza and influenza-like illness. Our findings do not rule out the possibility that Oscillococcinum® could have a clinically useful treatment effect but, given the low quality of the eligible studies, the evidence is not compelling. There was no evidence of clinically important harms due to Oscillococcinum®.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "We included six studies, which comprised two prevention trials (a total of 327 young to middle-aged adults in Russia) and four treatment trials (a total of 1196 teenagers and adults in France and Germany). The findings from the two prevention trials did not show that Oscillococcinum®can prevent the onset of flu. Although the results from the four other clinical trials suggested that Oscillococcinum®relieved flu symptoms at 48 hours, this might be due to bias in the trial methods. One patient reported headache after taking Oscillococcinum®. The evidence is current to September 2014. The overall standard of research reporting was poor, and thus many aspects of the trials' methods and results were at unclear risk of bias. We therefore judged the evidence overall as low quality, preventing clear conclusions from being made about Oscillococcinum®in the prevention or treatment of flu and flu-like illness." } ]	*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: No new trials were included in this 2014 update. We included six studies: two prophylaxis trials (327 young to middle-aged adults in Russia) and four treatment trials (1196 teenagers and adults in France and Germany). The overall standard of trial reporting was poor and hence many important methodological aspects of the trials had unclear risk of bias. There was no statistically significant difference between the effects of Oscillococcinum® and placebo in the prevention of influenza-like illness: risk ratio (RR) 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 1.34, P value = 0.16. Two treatment trials (judged as 'low quality') reported sufficient information to allow full data extraction: 48 hours after commencing treatment, there was an absolute risk reduction of 7.7% in the frequency of symptom relief with Oscillococcinum® compared with that of placebo (risk difference (RD) 0.077, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.12); the RR was 1.86 (95% CI 1.27 to 2.73; P value = 0.001). A significant but lesser effect was observed at three days (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.56; P value = 0.03), and no significant difference between the groups was noted at four days (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.27; P value = 0.10) or at five days (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.16; P value = 0.25). One of the six studies reported one patient who suffered an adverse effect (headache) from taking Oscillococcinum®. There is insufficient good evidence to enable robust conclusions to be made about Oscillococcinum® in the prevention or treatment of influenza and influenza-like illness. Our findings do not rule out the possibility that Oscillococcinum® could have a clinically useful treatment effect but, given the low quality of the eligible studies, the evidence is not compelling. There was no evidence of clinically important harms due to Oscillococcinum®. Output:
CochranePLS3073	[ { "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 studies met the inclusion criteria. Method of generation of allocation sequence, concealment of allocation and blinding were unclear in both studies. A total of 134 children were allocated to three treatment groups comprising diazepam alone, phenobarbitone and chlorpromazine, or phenobarbitone and chlorpromazine and diazepam. Meta-analysis of in-hospital deaths indicates that children treated with diazepam alone had a better chance of survival than those treated with combination of phenobarbitone and chlorpromazine (Relative Risk for death 0.36; 95% confidence interval 0.15 to 0.86; Risk Difference -0.22; 95% CI -0.38 to -0.06). Giving diazepam alone, or supplementing conventional anticonvulsants (phenobarbitone and chlorpromazine) with diazepam, was reported in one study to be associated with a statistically significantly milder clinical course and shorter duration of hospitalization. Although this review suggests that diazepam alone compared with combination of phenobarbitone and chlorpromazine may be more effective in treating tetanus, the small size, methodological limitations and lack of data on drug safety from available trials preclude definite conclusions to support change in current clinical practice. The application of this observation should be moderated by local needs and circumstances, pending the availability of better evidence. We recommend a reinforcement of preventive measures against tetanus infection and it is hoped that in the light of clear evidence about the preventive efficacy of tetanus toxoid immunization, concerted efforts should be made towards preventive interventions and ultimate eradication such that there will not be enough case materials for a trial. In the event of a need for a trial, a large prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial, which compares diazepam alone with combinations of other drugs (excluding diazepam) will be ideal.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "The review authors searched the medical literature and identified two randomised controlled trials with a total of 134 hospitalized neonates and older children who had tetanus from Nigeria (19 neonates, seven children aged between one month and 10 years of age) and Indonesia (74 neonates, 34 children aged between three days and 12 years). All drugs were given orally as medications and feeds are usually given via nasogastric tube in the settings where the disease burden is high. Neither study provided information on the safety of the interventions or followed up survivors beyond discharge from hospital." } ]	*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 studies met the inclusion criteria. Method of generation of allocation sequence, concealment of allocation and blinding were unclear in both studies. A total of 134 children were allocated to three treatment groups comprising diazepam alone, phenobarbitone and chlorpromazine, or phenobarbitone and chlorpromazine and diazepam. Meta-analysis of in-hospital deaths indicates that children treated with diazepam alone had a better chance of survival than those treated with combination of phenobarbitone and chlorpromazine (Relative Risk for death 0.36; 95% confidence interval 0.15 to 0.86; Risk Difference -0.22; 95% CI -0.38 to -0.06). Giving diazepam alone, or supplementing conventional anticonvulsants (phenobarbitone and chlorpromazine) with diazepam, was reported in one study to be associated with a statistically significantly milder clinical course and shorter duration of hospitalization. Although this review suggests that diazepam alone compared with combination of phenobarbitone and chlorpromazine may be more effective in treating tetanus, the small size, methodological limitations and lack of data on drug safety from available trials preclude definite conclusions to support change in current clinical practice. The application of this observation should be moderated by local needs and circumstances, pending the availability of better evidence. We recommend a reinforcement of preventive measures against tetanus infection and it is hoped that in the light of clear evidence about the preventive efficacy of tetanus toxoid immunization, concerted efforts should be made towards preventive interventions and ultimate eradication such that there will not be enough case materials for a trial. In the event of a need for a trial, a large prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial, which compares diazepam alone with combinations of other drugs (excluding diazepam) will be ideal. Output:
CochranePLS2998	[ { "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 reviews investigating TENS use in people with defined chronic pain or in people with chronic conditions associated with ongoing pain. One review investigating TENS for phantom or stump-associated pain in people following amputation did not have any included studies. We therefore extracted data from eight reviews which represented 51 TENS-related RCTs representing 2895 TENS-comparison participants entered into the studies. The included reviews followed consistent methods and achieved overall high scores on the AMSTAR checklist. The evidence reported within each review was consistently rated as very low quality. Using review authors' assessment of risk of bias, there were significant methodological limitations in included studies; and for all reviews, sample sizes were consistently small (the majority of studies included fewer than 50 participants per group). Six of the eight reviews presented a narrative synthesis of included studies. Two reviews reported a pooled analysis. Primary and secondary outcomes One review reported a beneficial effect of TENS versus sham therapy at reducing pain intensity on a 0 to 10 scale (MD −1.58, 95% CI −2.08 to −1.09, P < 0.001, I² = 29%, P = 0.22, 5 studies, 207 participants). However the quality of the evidence was very low due to significant methodological limitations and imprecision. A second review investigating pain intensity performed a pooled analysis by combining studies that compared TENS to sham with studies that compared TENS to no intervention (SMD −0.85, 95% CI −1.36 to −0.34, P = 0.001, I² = 83%, P < 0.001). This pooled analysis was judged as offering very low quality evidence due to significant methodological limitations, large between-trial heterogeneity and imprecision. We considered the approach of combining sham and no intervention data to be problematic since we would predict these different comparisons may be estimating different true effects. All remaining reviews also reported pain intensity as an outcome measure; however the data were presented in narrative review form only. Due to methodological limitation and lack of useable data, we were unable to offer any meaningful report on the remaining primary outcome regarding nature/incidence of adverse effects, nor for the remaining secondary outcomes: disability, health-related quality of life, analgesic medication use and participant global impression of change for any comparisons. We found the included reviews had a number of inconsistencies when evaluating the evidence from TENS studies. Approaches to assessing risk of bias around the participant, personnel and outcome-assessor blinding were perhaps the most obvious area of difference across included reviews. We also found wide variability in terms of primary and secondary outcome measures, and inclusion/exclusion criteria for studies varied with respect to including studies which assessed immediate effects of single interventions. We found the methodological quality of the reviews was good, but quality of the evidence within them was very low. We were therefore unable to conclude with any confidence that, in people with chronic pain, TENS is harmful, or beneficial for pain control, disability, health-related quality of life, use of pain relieving medicines, or global impression of change. We make recommendations with respect to future TENS study designs which may meaningfully reduce the uncertainty relating to the effectiveness of this treatment in people with chronic pain.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "As of November 2018, we found nine reviews eligible for inclusion. Seven reviews specifically investigated TENS for the treatment of pain/function in a variety of chronic conditions in adults. We also included one review investigating a range of electrotherapy modalities for neck pain and one review examining non-pharmacological interventions in people with spinal cord injury. Both of these reviews included studies investigating TENS. Though the included reviews were of high quality, we found the quality of the evidence presented within the reviews to be very low. We are unable to confidently state whether TENS is effective in relieving pain in people with chronic pain. This is due to the very low quality of the evidence, and the overall small numbers of participants included in studies in the reviews. Issues with quality, study size and lack of data meant we were unable to draw any conclusion on TENS-associated harms or side-effects or the effect of TENS on disability, health-related quality of life, use of pain-relieving medicines or people's impression of how much TENS changed their condition." } ]	*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 reviews investigating TENS use in people with defined chronic pain or in people with chronic conditions associated with ongoing pain. One review investigating TENS for phantom or stump-associated pain in people following amputation did not have any included studies. We therefore extracted data from eight reviews which represented 51 TENS-related RCTs representing 2895 TENS-comparison participants entered into the studies. The included reviews followed consistent methods and achieved overall high scores on the AMSTAR checklist. The evidence reported within each review was consistently rated as very low quality. Using review authors' assessment of risk of bias, there were significant methodological limitations in included studies; and for all reviews, sample sizes were consistently small (the majority of studies included fewer than 50 participants per group). Six of the eight reviews presented a narrative synthesis of included studies. Two reviews reported a pooled analysis. Primary and secondary outcomes One review reported a beneficial effect of TENS versus sham therapy at reducing pain intensity on a 0 to 10 scale (MD −1.58, 95% CI −2.08 to −1.09, P < 0.001, I² = 29%, P = 0.22, 5 studies, 207 participants). However the quality of the evidence was very low due to significant methodological limitations and imprecision. A second review investigating pain intensity performed a pooled analysis by combining studies that compared TENS to sham with studies that compared TENS to no intervention (SMD −0.85, 95% CI −1.36 to −0.34, P = 0.001, I² = 83%, P < 0.001). This pooled analysis was judged as offering very low quality evidence due to significant methodological limitations, large between-trial heterogeneity and imprecision. We considered the approach of combining sham and no intervention data to be problematic since we would predict these different comparisons may be estimating different true effects. All remaining reviews also reported pain intensity as an outcome measure; however the data were presented in narrative review form only. Due to methodological limitation and lack of useable data, we were unable to offer any meaningful report on the remaining primary outcome regarding nature/incidence of adverse effects, nor for the remaining secondary outcomes: disability, health-related quality of life, analgesic medication use and participant global impression of change for any comparisons. We found the included reviews had a number of inconsistencies when evaluating the evidence from TENS studies. Approaches to assessing risk of bias around the participant, personnel and outcome-assessor blinding were perhaps the most obvious area of difference across included reviews. We also found wide variability in terms of primary and secondary outcome measures, and inclusion/exclusion criteria for studies varied with respect to including studies which assessed immediate effects of single interventions. We found the methodological quality of the reviews was good, but quality of the evidence within them was very low. We were therefore unable to conclude with any confidence that, in people with chronic pain, TENS is harmful, or beneficial for pain control, disability, health-related quality of life, use of pain relieving medicines, or global impression of change. We make recommendations with respect to future TENS study designs which may meaningfully reduce the uncertainty relating to the effectiveness of this treatment in people with chronic pain. Output:
CochranePLS2434	[ { "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 trials met all our eligibility criteria and provided extractable data. Three trials were at low risk of bias, one trial was at unclear risk, and two trials were at high risk of bias. Five trials were conducted in Asian populations. In preventing development of subsequent gastric cancer, H. pylori eradication therapy was superior to placebo or no treatment (6 trials, 6497 participants, risk ratio (RR) of developing subsequent gastric cancer 0.66; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 0.95; moderate-quality evidence). Only one trial reported effect of eradication of H. pylori on development of subsequent oesophageal cancer (2 (0.2%) among 817 participants assigned to eradication therapy, compared with 1 (0.1%) of 813 participants allocated to placebo; RR 1.99; 95% CI 0.18 to 21.91). The effect of H. pylori eradication on preventing death from gastric cancer compared with placebo or no treatment was uncertain due to wide confidence intervals (3 trials, 4475 participants, RR 0.67; 95% CI 0.40 to 1.11; moderate-quality evidence). There was no evidence of an effect on all-cause mortality (4 trials, 5253 participants, RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.38; moderate-quality evidence). Adverse events data were poorly reported. We found limited, moderate-quality evidence that searching for and eradicating H. pylori reduces the incidence of gastric cancer in healthy asymptomatic infected Asian individuals, but we cannot necessarily extrapolate this data to other populations.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "A literature search up to December 2013 found 6 trials (containing 6497 participants, 3 trials at low risk of bias). Five of the studies were based in Asia. We found that antibiotics for H. pylori have a small benefit in preventing gastric cancer (51 (1.6%) of 3294 participants given treatment developed gastric cancer subsequently, compared with 76 (2.4%) of 3203 given no treatment or a placebo), but it is unclear whether or not they decrease the number of deaths from the disease, increase or decrease the number of deaths due to any cause, or increase or decrease the number of cases of oesophageal cancer. Data about side effects of treatment were poorly reported. Three trials were at low risk of bias, one trial was at unclear risk, and two trials were at high risk of bias. One study was at high risk of bias because no placebo was used for the active eradication therapy regimen, and so this part of the trial was unblinded, and the other study was at high risk of bias due to inconsistencies in data reporting at the two points of follow-up. We were unable to resolve this discrepancy despite contacting the original authors. As a result, we downgraded the quality of evidence from high to moderate due to serious risk of bias." } ]	*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 trials met all our eligibility criteria and provided extractable data. Three trials were at low risk of bias, one trial was at unclear risk, and two trials were at high risk of bias. Five trials were conducted in Asian populations. In preventing development of subsequent gastric cancer, H. pylori eradication therapy was superior to placebo or no treatment (6 trials, 6497 participants, risk ratio (RR) of developing subsequent gastric cancer 0.66; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 0.95; moderate-quality evidence). Only one trial reported effect of eradication of H. pylori on development of subsequent oesophageal cancer (2 (0.2%) among 817 participants assigned to eradication therapy, compared with 1 (0.1%) of 813 participants allocated to placebo; RR 1.99; 95% CI 0.18 to 21.91). The effect of H. pylori eradication on preventing death from gastric cancer compared with placebo or no treatment was uncertain due to wide confidence intervals (3 trials, 4475 participants, RR 0.67; 95% CI 0.40 to 1.11; moderate-quality evidence). There was no evidence of an effect on all-cause mortality (4 trials, 5253 participants, RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.38; moderate-quality evidence). Adverse events data were poorly reported. We found limited, moderate-quality evidence that searching for and eradicating H. pylori reduces the incidence of gastric cancer in healthy asymptomatic infected Asian individuals, but we cannot necessarily extrapolate this data to other populations. Output:
CochranePLS1871	[ { "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 33 randomised controlled trials, from 6 countries and in a range of settings. A total of 8244 patients was randomised and entered into studies. The most common interventions were question checklists and patient coaching. Most interventions were delivered immediately before the consultations. Commonly-occurring outcomes were: question asking, patient participation, patient anxiety, knowledge, satisfaction and consultation length. A minority of studies showed positive effects for these outcomes. Meta-analyses, however, showed small and statistically significant increases for question asking (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.27 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 0.36)) and patient satisfaction (SMD 0.09 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.16)). There was a notable but not statistically significant decrease in patient anxiety before consultations (weighted mean difference (WMD) -1.56 (95% CI -7.10 to 3.97)). There were small and not statistically significant changes in patient anxiety after consultations (reduced) (SMD -0.08 (95%CI -0.22 to 0.06)), patient knowledge (reduced) (SMD -0.34 (95% CI -0.94 to 0.25)), and consultation length (increased) (SMD 0.10 (95% CI -0.05 to 0.25)). Further analyses showed that both coaching and written materials produced similar effects on question asking but that coaching produced a smaller increase in consultation length and a larger increase in patient satisfaction. Interventions immediately before consultations led to a small and statistically significant increase in consultation length, whereas those implemented some time before the consultation had no effect. Both interventions immediately before the consultation and those some time before it led to small increases in patient satisfaction, but this was only statistically significant for those immediately before the consultation. There appear to be no clear benefits from clinician training in addition to patient interventions, although the evidence is limited. Interventions before consultations designed to help patients address their information needs within consultations produce limited benefits to patients. Further research could explore whether the quality of questions is increased, whether anxiety before consultations is reduced, the effects on other outcomes and the impact of training and the timing of interventions. More studies need to consider the timing of interventions and possibly the type of training provided to clinicians.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "We identified 33 randomised controlled trials involving 8244 patients from six countries, mainly the USA, in a range of clinical settings. Most interventions, which included written materials (for example, question prompt sheets) and coaching sessions, were delivered in the waiting room immediately before the consultation. They were compared to dummy interventions or usual care. Health issues included primary care and family medicine, cancer, diabetes, heart problems, women's issues, peptic ulcer and mental illness. We found small increases in question asking and patient satisfaction and a possible reduction in patient anxiety before and after consultations. We also found a possible reduction in patient knowledge and a possible small increase in consultation length. Both coaching and written materials produced similar effects on asking questions but coaching had a larger benefit in terms of patient satisfaction. Interventions immediately before the consultation led to a small increase in patient satisfaction whereas giving the intervention some time before did not. Interventions immediately before the consultation also resulted in small increases in consultation length, particularly when using written materials rather than coaching. Interventions some time before the consultation did not alter consultation time. The interventions seem to help patients ask more questions in consultations, but do not have other clear benefits. Doctors and nurses need to continue to try to help their patients ask questions in consultations and question prompt sheets or coaching may help in some circumstances." } ]	*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 33 randomised controlled trials, from 6 countries and in a range of settings. A total of 8244 patients was randomised and entered into studies. The most common interventions were question checklists and patient coaching. Most interventions were delivered immediately before the consultations. Commonly-occurring outcomes were: question asking, patient participation, patient anxiety, knowledge, satisfaction and consultation length. A minority of studies showed positive effects for these outcomes. Meta-analyses, however, showed small and statistically significant increases for question asking (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.27 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 0.36)) and patient satisfaction (SMD 0.09 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.16)). There was a notable but not statistically significant decrease in patient anxiety before consultations (weighted mean difference (WMD) -1.56 (95% CI -7.10 to 3.97)). There were small and not statistically significant changes in patient anxiety after consultations (reduced) (SMD -0.08 (95%CI -0.22 to 0.06)), patient knowledge (reduced) (SMD -0.34 (95% CI -0.94 to 0.25)), and consultation length (increased) (SMD 0.10 (95% CI -0.05 to 0.25)). Further analyses showed that both coaching and written materials produced similar effects on question asking but that coaching produced a smaller increase in consultation length and a larger increase in patient satisfaction. Interventions immediately before consultations led to a small and statistically significant increase in consultation length, whereas those implemented some time before the consultation had no effect. Both interventions immediately before the consultation and those some time before it led to small increases in patient satisfaction, but this was only statistically significant for those immediately before the consultation. There appear to be no clear benefits from clinician training in addition to patient interventions, although the evidence is limited. Interventions before consultations designed to help patients address their information needs within consultations produce limited benefits to patients. Further research could explore whether the quality of questions is increased, whether anxiety before consultations is reduced, the effects on other outcomes and the impact of training and the timing of interventions. More studies need to consider the timing of interventions and possibly the type of training provided to clinicians. Output: