Datasets:

clinicalnlplab

/

CochranePLS_train

like 0

Follow

Clinical NLP Lab 22

[ { "from": "human", "value": "***TASK***\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***INPUT***\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***OUTPUT***\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***DOCUMENTATION***\n\n***EXAMPLES***\n\nInput: Five studies (n = 333 patients) were included in the review. Three studies were judged to be at low risk of bias. Two studies were judged to be at high risk of bias due to blinding. Intramuscular methotrexate was superior to placebo for maintenance of remission at 40 weeks follow-up. Sixty-five per cent of patients in the intramuscular methotrexate group maintained remission compared to 39% of placebo patients (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.67; 76 patients).The number needed to treat to prevent one relapse was four. A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of evidence supporting this outcome was moderate due to sparse data (40 events). There was no statistically significant difference in maintenance of remission at 36 weeks follow-up between oral methotrexate (12.5 mg/week) and placebo. Ninety per cent of patients in the oral methotrexate group maintained remission compared to 67% of placebo patients (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.67; 22 patients). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of evidence supporting this outcome was low due to very sparse data (17 events). A pooled analysis of two small studies (n = 50) showed no statistically significant difference in continued remission between oral methotrexate (12.5 mg to 15 mg/week) and 6-mercaptopurine (1 mg/kg/day) for maintenance of remission. Seventy-seven per cent of methotrexate patients maintained remission compared to 57% of 6-mercaptopurine patients (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.00). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of evidence supporting this outcome was very low due to high risk of bias in one study (no blinding) and very sparse data (33 events). One small (13 patients) poor quality study found no difference in continued remission between methotrexate and 5-aminosalicylic acid (RR 2.62, 95% CI 0.23 to 29.79). A pooled analysis of two studies (n = 145) including one high quality trial (n = 126) found no statistically significant difference in maintenance of remission at 36 to 48 weeks between combination therapy (methotrexate and infliximab) and infliximab monotherapy. Fifty-four percent of patients in the combination therapy group maintained remission compared to 53% of monotherapy patients (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.38, P = 0.95). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of evidence supporting this outcome was low due to high risk of bias in one study (no blinding) and sparse data (78 events). Adverse events were generally mild in nature and resolved upon discontinuation or with folic acid supplementation. Common adverse events included nausea and vomiting, symptoms of a cold, abdominal pain, headache, joint pain or arthralgia, and fatigue. Moderate quality evidence indicates that intramuscular methotrexate at a dose of 15 mg/week is superior to placebo for maintenance of remission in Crohn's disease. Intramuscular methotrexate appears to be safe. Low dose oral methotrexate (12.5 to 15 mg/week) does not appear to be effective for maintenance of remission in Crohn's disease. Combination therapy (methotrexate and infliximab) does not appear to be any more effective for maintenance of remission than infliximab monotherapy. The results for efficacy outcomes between methotrexate and 6-mercaptopurine and methotrexate and 5-aminosalicylic acid were uncertain. Large-scale studies of methotrexate given orally at higher doses for maintenance of remission in Crohn’s disease may provide stronger evidence for the use of methotrexate in this manner.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "This review identified five studies that included a total of 333 participants. Two studies compared methotrexate (administered by pill or intramuscular injection) to a placebo (a sugar pill or a saline injection). One of these two studies also compared methotrexate to 6-mercaptopurine (an immunosuppressive drug). One small study compared methotrexate to both 6-mercaptopurine and 5-aminosalicylic acid (an anti-inflammatory drug). Two studies compared combination therapy with methotrexate and infliximab (a biological drug that is a tumour necrosis factor-alpha antagonist) to infliximab used by itself. One high quality study (76 patients) shows that methotrexate (15 mg/week) injected intramuscularly (i.e. into muscles located in the arm or thigh) for 40 weeks is superior to placebo for preventing relapse (return of disease symptoms) among patients whose disease became inactive while taking higher doses of intramuscular methotrexate (25 mg/week). Side effects occurred in a small number of patients. These side effects are usually mild in nature and include nausea and vomiting, cold symptoms, abdominal pain, headache, joint pain and fatigue. One small study (22 patients) found no difference in continued remission between low dose methotrexate (12.5 mg/week) taken orally and placebo and suggests that low dose oral methotrexate is not an effective treatment for inactive Crohn's disease. However this result is uncertain due to the small number of patients assessed in the study. Large-scale studies of methotrexate given orally at higher doses for maintenance of remission in Crohn’s disease may provide stronger evidence for the use of methotrexate in this manner. A pooled analysis of two studies (50 patients) found no difference in continued remission between oral methotrexate (12.5 to 15 mg/week) and 6-mercaptopurine (1 mg/kg/day). No firm conclusions can be drawn as these results are uncertain due to poor study quality and small numbers of patients. A small study (13 patients) found no difference in continued remission between methotrexate and 5-aminosalicylic acid. No conclusions can be drawn from this study as the results are very uncertain due to poor study quality and small numbers of patients. A pooled analysis of two studies (145 patients) found no difference in continued remission between combination therapy and infliximab. Combination therapy with methotrexate and infliximab does not appear to be any more effective for maintenance of remission than infliximab used by itself. This result is uncertain because one study was of poor quality (the other was high quality) and small numbers of patients." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "***TASK***\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***INPUT***\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***OUTPUT***\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***DOCUMENTATION***\n\n***EXAMPLES***\n\nInput: Two RCTs were identified. One compared warfarin, aspirin and no antithrombotic therapy and the second compared warfarin with placebo in patients with idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy. Three small prospective controlled studies of warfarin in heart failure were also identified, but they were over 50 years old with methods not considered reliable by modern standards. In both WASH 2004 and HELAS 2006, there were no significant differences in the incidence of myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke and death between patients taking oral anticoagulation and those taking placebo. Four retrospective non-randomised cohort analyses and four observational studies of oral anticoagulation in heart failure included differing populations of heart failure patients and reported contradictory results. Based on the two major randomised trials (HELAS 2006; WASH 2004), there is no convincing evidence that oral anticoagulant therapy modifies mortality or vascular events in patients with heart failure and sinus rhythm. Although oral anticoagulation is indicated in certain groups of patients with heart failure (for example those with atrial fibrillation), the available data does not support the routine use of anticoagulation in heart failure patients who remain in sinus rhythm.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "Although anticoagulants such as warfarin are of proven benefit in patients in certain subgroups of patients with heart failure, such as those with atrial fibrillation, there is little evidence that warfarin works well in the wider heart failure population. There may also be serious side effects such as bleeding (causing ulcers and haemorrhagic stroke). At present there are no data to recommend the routine use of anticoagulants to prevent thromboembolism in patients with heart failure who are in normal heart rhythm." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "***TASK***\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***INPUT***\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***OUTPUT***\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***DOCUMENTATION***\n\n***EXAMPLES***\n\nInput: We included five RCTs involving 825 participants. The studies were carried out in the USA and Europe, and were published between 1987 and 2017. Risk of bias across the studies varied. Most had low risk for selection, reporting and attrition bias, and a high risk for performance and detection bias because blinding was inadequate or absent. All participants had mild to moderate hearing loss. The average age across all five studies was between 69 and 83 years. The duration of the studies ranged between six weeks and six months. There was a large beneficial effect of hearing aids on hearing-specific health-related quality of life associated with participation in daily life as measured using the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (HHIE, scale range 1 to 100) compared to the unaided/placebo condition (mean difference (MD) -26.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) -42.16 to -10.77; 722 participants; three studies) (moderate-quality evidence). There was a small beneficial effect of hearing aids on general health-related quality of life (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.38, 95% CI -0.55 to -0.21; 568 participants; two studies) (moderate-quality evidence). There was a large beneficial effect of hearing aids on listening ability (SMD -1.88, 95% CI -3.24 to -0.52; 534 participants; two studies) (moderate-quality evidence). Adverse effects were measured in only one study (48 participants) and none were reported (very low-quality evidence). The available evidence concurs that hearing aids are effective at improving hearing-specific health-related quality of life, general health-related quality of life and listening ability in adults with mild to moderate hearing loss. The evidence is compatible with the widespread provision of hearing aids as the first-line clinical management in those who seek help for hearing difficulties. Greater consistency is needed in the choice of outcome measures used to assess benefits from hearing aids. Further placebo-controlled studies would increase our confidence in the estimates of these effects and ascertain whether they vary according to age, gender, degree of hearing loss and type of hearing aid.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "The evidence is up to date to 23 March 2017. We found five clinical studies involving 825 adults with mild to moderate hearing loss who were randomly given either hearing aids, no hearing aids or placebo hearing aids. Studies involved older adults with the average age within studies between 69 and 83 years. The duration of the studies was between six weeks and six months. We found evidence in three studies that hearing aids have a large beneficial effect in improving the ability of adults with mild to moderate hearing loss to take part in everyday situations. Hearing aids have a small beneficial effect in improving general health-related quality of life, such as physical, social, emotional and mental well-being, and have a large effect in improving the ability to listen to other people. Only one study attempted to measure harms due to hearing aids. None were reported. We judged the evidence that hearing aids improve the ability to take part in everyday situations, improve general health-related quality of life and improve listening ability to be of moderate quality. This means that while we are reasonably confident that the reported benefits of hearing aids are real, there is a possibility that if further studies are conducted the size of the benefit might differ. We judged the quality of evidence for harms to be very low, because this was only measured in one small study. We found that hearing aids improve the ability of adults with mild to moderate hearing loss to take part in everyday life, their general quality of life and their ability to listen to other people. If an adult with mild to moderate hearing loss seeks help for their hearing difficulties, hearing aids are an effective clinical option. It is important that future studies measure benefits consistently and report benefits separately for different age groups, genders, levels of hearing loss and types of hearing aids." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "***TASK***\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***INPUT***\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***OUTPUT***\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***DOCUMENTATION***\n\n***EXAMPLES***\n\nInput: 35 short-term (14 weeks or less) RCTs were included in the analysis (4597 participants). Symptom severity for 17 trials was significantly reduced in the medication groups, relative to placebo (weighted mean difference -5.76, 95% confidence intervals (CI) -8.16 to -3.36, number of participants (N) = 2507). Similarly, summary statistics for responder status from 13 trials demonstrated overall superiority of a variety of medication agents to placebo (relative risk 1.49, 95% CI 1.28 to 1.73, number needed to treat = 4.85, 95% CI 3.85 to 6.25, N = 1272). Medication and placebo response occurred in 59.1% (N = 644) and 38.5% (628) of patients, respectively. Of the medication classes, evidence of treatment efficacy was most convincing for the SSRIs. Medication was superior to placebo in reducing the severity of PTSD symptom clusters, comorbid depression and disability. Medication was also less well tolerated than placebo. A narrative review of 3 maintenance trials suggested that long term medication may be required in treating PTSD. Medication treatments can be effective in treating PTSD, acting to reduce its core symptoms, as well as associated depression and disability. The findings of this review support the status of SSRIs as first line agents in the pharmacotherapy of PTSD, as well as their value in long-term treatment. However, there remain important gaps in the evidence base, and a continued need for more effective agents in the management of PTSD.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "This was a systematic review of 35 short-term randomised controlled trials of pharmacotherapy for PTSD (4597 participants). A significantly larger proportion of patients responded to medication (59.1%) than to placebo (38.5%) (13 trials, 1272 participants). Symptom severity was significantly reduced in 17 trials (2507 participants). The largest trials showing efficacy were of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, with long-term efficacy also observed for these medications." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "***TASK***\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***INPUT***\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***OUTPUT***\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***DOCUMENTATION***\n\n***EXAMPLES***\n\nInput: Nine studies were included, six of which were published as abstracts. Five studies were included in the meta-analysis (86 participants who undertook pulmonary rehabilitation and 82 control participants). One study used a blinded assessor and intention-to-treat analysis. No adverse effects of pulmonary rehabilitation were reported. Pulmonary rehabilitation improved the six-minute walk distance with weighted mean difference (WMD) of 44.34 metres (95% confidence interval (CI) 26.04 to 62.64 metres) and improved oxygen consumption (VO2) peak with WMD of 1.24 mL/kg/min-1 (95% CI 0.46 to 2.03 mL/kg/min-1). Improvements in six-minute walk distance and VO2 peak were also seen in the subgroup of participants with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) (WMD 35.63 metres, 95% CI 16.02 to 55.23 metres; WMD 1.46 mL/kg/min-1, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.39 mL/kg/min-1, respectively). Reduced dyspnoea (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.66, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.28) following pulmonary rehabilitation was also seen in the IPF subgroup (SMD -0.68, 95% CI -1.12 to -0.25). Quality of life improved following pulmonary rehabilitation for all participants on a variety of measures (SMD 0.59, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.98) and for the subgroup of people with IPF (SMD 0.59, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.03). Two studies reported longer-term outcomes, with no significant effects of pulmonary rehabilitation on clinical variables or survival at three or six months. Available data were insufficient to allow examination of the impact of disease severity or exercise training modality. Pulmonary rehabilitation seems to be safe for people with ILD. Improvements in functional exercise capacity, dyspnoea and quality of life are seen immediately following pulmonary rehabilitation, with benefits also evident in IPF. Because of inadequate reporting of methods and small numbers of included participants, the quality of evidence was low to moderate. Little evidence was available regarding longer-term effects of pulmonary rehabilitation.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "Nine studies were included; however only five studies provided sufficient information for the analysis (86 participants receiving pulmonary rehabilitation and 82 participants not receiving pulmonary rehabilitation). Three studies included only people with IPF, and the other six studies included people with a variety of ILDs. The average age of participants ranged from 36 to 71 years. No reports described unwelcome effects of pulmonary rehabilitation. Immediately following pulmonary rehabilitation, participants could walk farther than those who had not undertaken pulmonary rehabilitation (on average, 44 metres farther in six minutes). Participants also improved their maximum exercise capacity and reported less shortness of breath and improved quality of life. People with IPF also experienced improvements in exercise capacity, dyspnoea and quality of life following pulmonary rehabilitation. Information was insufficient to establish whether ongoing effects were noted once pulmonary rehabilitation had stopped. Because of inadequate reporting of methods and small numbers of participants, the quality of evidence was low to moderate. This Cochrane plain language summary is current to June 2014." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "***TASK***\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***INPUT***\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***OUTPUT***\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***DOCUMENTATION***\n\n***EXAMPLES***\n\nInput: Seventeen RCTs with 1103 participants were included. These studies differed in the both thrombolytic agent used and in the technique used to deliver it. Systemic, loco-regional and catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) were all included. Fourteen studies were rated as low risk of bias and three studies were rated as high risk of bias. We combined the results as any (all) thrombolysis compared to standard anticoagulation. Complete clot lysis occurred significantly more often in the treatment group at early follow-up (RR 4.91; 95% CI 1.66 to 14.53, P = 0.004) and at intermediate follow-up (RR 2.44; 95% CI 1.40 to 4.27, P = 0.002; moderate quality evidence). A similar effect was seen for any degree of improvement in venous patency. Up to five years after treatment significantly less PTS occurred in those receiving thrombolysis (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.81; P < 0.0001; moderate quality evidence). This reduction in PTS was still observed at late follow-up (beyond five years), in two studies (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.77; P < 0.0001; moderate quality evidence). Leg ulceration was reduced although the data were limited by small numbers (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.16 to 4.73, P = 0.87). Those receiving thrombolysis had increased bleeding complications (RR 2.23; 95% CI 1.41 to 3.52, P = 0.0006; moderate quality evidence). Three strokes occurred in the treatment group, all in trials conducted pre-1990, and none in the control group. There was no significant effect on mortality detected at either early or intermediate follow-up. Data on the occurrence of pulmonary embolism (PE) and recurrent DVT were inconclusive. Systemic thrombolysis and CDT had similar levels of effectiveness. Studies of CDT included two trials in femoral and iliofemoral DVT, and results from these are consistent with those from trials of systemic thrombolysis in DVT at other levels of occlusion. Thrombolysis increases the patency of veins and reduces the incidence of PTS following proximal DVT by a third. Evidence suggests that systemic administration and CDT have similar effectiveness. Strict eligibility criteria appears to improve safety in recent studies and may be necessary to reduce the risk of bleeding complications. This may limit the applicability of this treatment. In those who are treated there is a small increased risk of bleeding. Using GRADE assessment, the evidence was judged to be of moderate quality due to many trials having low numbers of participants. However, the results across studies were consistent and we have reasonable confidence in these results.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "The review results are based on 17 controlled trials that randomised a total of 1103 people with acute DVT (within 21 days of onset of symptoms) to receive thrombolysis or anticoagulant treatment. Trials were carried out principally in the USA, Scandinavia, Germany and the UK. All trials included men and women ranging in age from 18 to 75 years with a preponderance of older adults. The present review (current until February 2016) showed that thrombolysis may have advantages over standard anticoagulation treatment. Thrombolysis effectively dissolved the clot so that complete clot breakdown occurred more often with thrombolysis than with standard anticoagulant therapy. Blood flow in the affected vein (venous patency) was also better maintained. Three trials (306 participants) continued for over six months and found that fewer people developed PTS when treated with thrombolysis, 45% compared with 66% in the standard anticoagulation treatment group. Two trials (211 participants) which continued for over five years also showed that fewer people developed PTS when treated with thrombolysis. Those receiving thrombolysis had more bleeding complications than with standard anticoagulation (10% versus 8%). Most bleeding episodes and deaths occurred in the older studies. Use of strict eligibility criteria appears to have improved the safety of this treatment, which is effective delivered directly to the clot by catheter or via bloodstream from another vein. Qualitity of the evidence Using GRADE assessment, the evidence was judged to be of moderate quality due to many trials having low numbers of participants. However, the results across studies were consistent and we have reasonable confidence in these results." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "***TASK***\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***INPUT***\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***OUTPUT***\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***DOCUMENTATION***\n\n***EXAMPLES***\n\nInput: We included three randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with 175 women. The three published RCTs compared NTG alone versus placebo. The detachment status of retained placenta was unknown in all three RCTs. Collectively, among the three included trials, two were judged to be at low risk of bias and the third trial was judged to be at high risk of bias for two domains: incomplete outcome data and selective reporting. The three trials reported seven out of 23 of the review's pre-specified outcomes. The primary outcome \"manual removal of the placenta\" was reported in all three studies. No differences were seen between NTG and placebo for manual removal of the placenta (average risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 1.46; women = 175; I² = 81%). A random-effects model was used because of evidence of substantial heterogeneity in the analysis. There were also no differences between groups for risk of severe postpartum haemorrhage (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.39; women = 150; studies = two; I² = 0%). Blood transfusion was only reported in one study (40 women) and again there was no difference between groups (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 14.90; women = 40; I² = 0%). Mean blood loss (mL) was reported in the three studies and no differences were observed (mean difference (MD) -115.31, 95% CI -306.25 to 75.63; women = 169; I² = 83%). Nitroglycerin administration was not associated with an increase in headaches (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.47; women = 174; studies = three; I² = 0%). However, nitroglycerin administration was associated with a significant, though mild, decrease in systolic and diastolic blood pressure and a significant increase in pulse rate (MD -3.75, 95% CI -7.47 to -0.03) for systolic blood pressure, and (MD 6.00, 95% CI 3.07 to 8.93) for pulse rate (beats per minute) respectively (reported by only one study including 24 participants). Maternal mortality and addition of therapeutic uterotonics were not reported in any study. In cases of retained placenta, currently available data showed that the use of NTG alone did not reduce the need for manual removal of placenta. This intervention did not increase the incidence of severe postpartum haemorrhage nor the need for blood transfusion. Haemodynamically, NTG had a significant though mild effect on both pulse rate and blood pressure.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "This review included three trials that randomly assigned 175 women with the placenta remaining undelivered more than 15 minutes after delivery to either a placebo or the tocolytic nitroglycerin. Both groups received oxytocin to stimulate contractions of the uterus. Combined administration of nitroglycerin and oxytocin did not reduce the need for manual removal of placenta, blood loss, nor the incidence of severe postpartum haemorrhage. Nitroglycerin administration did not cause headache but resulted in a mild drop in blood pressure and a related increase in heart rate. Two out of the three trials had low risk of bias but this result needs confirmation in larger trials with adequate sample sizes to verify the role of nitroglycerin and other tocolytic drugs in managing different subtypes of retained placenta. The trials in this review did not specify the type of retained placenta. We have included an explanation of some of the scientific terms that are used in this review in a glossary (see Appendix 1)." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "***TASK***\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***INPUT***\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***OUTPUT***\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***DOCUMENTATION***\n\n***EXAMPLES***\n\nInput: We included 10 trials with a total of 3417 women randomised. Seven of these trials, recruiting 2629 women, contributed data to the review. However, results for all outcomes were based on single studies. There was limited evidence for the primary outcomes of reduction of episodes of violence (physical, sexual, and/or psychological) and prevention of violence during and up to one year after pregnancy (as defined by the authors of trials). In one study, women who received the intervention reported fewer episodes of partner violence during pregnancy and in the postpartum period (risk ratio (RR) 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43 to 0.88, 306 women, moderate quality). Groups did not differ for Conflict Tactics Score - the mean partner abuse scores in the first three months postpartum (mean difference (MD) 4.20 higher, 95% CI -10.74 to 19.14, one study, 46 women, very low quality). The Current Abuse Score for partner abuse in the first three months was also similar between groups (MD -0.12 lower, 95% CI -0.31 lower to 0.07 higher, one study, 191 women, very low quality). Evidence for the outcomes episodes of partner abuse during pregnancy or episodes during the first three months postpartum was not significant (respectively, RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.02, one study with 220 women, very low quality; and RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.04, one study, 271 women, very low quality). Finally, the risk for low birthweight (< 2500 g) did not differ between groups (RR 0.74, 95 % CI 0.41 to 1.32, 306 infants, low quality). There were few statistically significant differences between intervention and control groups for depression during pregnancy and the postnatal period. Only one study reported findings for neonatal outcomes such as preterm delivery and birthweight, and there were no clinically significant differences between groups. None of the studies reported results for other secondary outcomes: Apgar score less than seven at one minute and five minutes, stillbirth, neonatal death, miscarriage, maternal mortality, antepartum haemorrhage, and placental abruption. There is insufficient evidence to assess the effectiveness of interventions for domestic violence on pregnancy outcomes. There is a need for high-quality, RCTs with adequate statistical power to determine whether intervention programs prevent or reduce domestic violence episodes during pregnancy, or have any effect on maternal and neonatal mortality and morbidity outcomes.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "Routine prenatal care offers opportunities for healthcare staff to identify women at risk of being abused. In this review we included 10 randomised trials involving a total of 3417 women, seven of which studied pregnant women who were at high risk of partner violence. The interventions examined in the studies included a single brief individualised consultation, case management and referral to a social care worker, and multiple therapy sessions during pregnancy and after birth. Due to the lack of data, and the different way outcomes were reported, we were unable to identify interventions that worked better than others. Studies focused on different outcomes and we were not able to pool information to draw conclusions about the overall effectiveness of the interventions. Most of the studies did not report on whether or not there had been any reduction in episodes of violence. There was evidence from a single study that the total number of women reporting partner violence during pregnancy and after birth was reduced for women receiving a psychological therapy intervention. Several of the studies examined whether women who received interventions were less likely to have depression after the birth of the baby, but the evidence was not consistent. Other outcomes for the baby such as reduced birthweight and preterm birth were reported in only one study, and the intervention did not lessen the risk of preterm birth (< 2500 g). None of the studies reported results for important outcomes such as stillbirth, neonatal death, miscarriage, maternal deaths, antepartum haemorrhage, and placental abruption. More information is needed from well-conducted trials before any particular interventional approach can be recommended." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "***TASK***\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***INPUT***\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***OUTPUT***\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***DOCUMENTATION***\n\n***EXAMPLES***\n\nInput: We included seven new studies with 663 participants in the 2017 update; five RCTs and two CCTs. These were added to the nine previously included studies (six RCTs and three CCTs with a total of 373 participants) for a total of 16 included studies and 1036 participants in this updated review. The mean age and range data for all participants were not reported for all studies. We identified two registered trials that met the inclusion criteria for this review; however there are no results for these studies yet. Overall, the GRADE assessment of evidence quality ranged from moderate to very low. The method of randomization in 11 of the 12 included RCTs was explicitly stated and adequate. Incomplete or methodologically diverse reporting of data affected the completeness of the analysis. Data on additional aromatherapies were added in the 2017 update (blended aromatherapy products, and peppermint products). Heterogeneity of outcome measures and time points between studies affected the completeness of the analysis. In the summary of the findings of six studies, we did not find aromatherapy to be effective in reducing nausea severity in comparison to placebo (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.63 to 0.18, P value = 0.28, 241 participants, level of evidence: low). Those participants receiving aromatherapy were no more likely to be free of nausea at the end of the treatment period than those receiving placebo (RR 3.25, 95% CI 0.31 to 34.33, P value = 0.33, 4 trials, 193 participants, evidence level: very low), however they were less likely to require rescue antiemetics (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.97, P value = 0.04, 7 trials, 609 participants, evidence level: low). There were no data reported on adverse events or patient satisfaction for this comparison. A specific comparison of peppermint aromatherapy to placebo did not show evidence of an effect on nausea severity at five minutes post-treatment in the pooled results (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.86 to 0.49, P value = 0.59, 4 trials, 115 participants, evidence level: low). There were no data reported on nausea duration, use of rescue antiemetics, adverse events or patient satisfaction for this comparison. When we pooled studies comparing isopropyl alcohol to standard antiemetic treatment in a GRADE summary of findings, in terms of nausea duration, there was a significant effect on the time in minutes to a 50% reduction in nausea scores (SMD -1.10, 95% CI -1.43 to -0.78, P value < 0.00001, 3 trials, 176 participants, evidence level: moderate). Fewer participants who received isopropyl alcohol required rescue antiemetics (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.98, P value = 0.04, 215 participants, 4 trials, evidence level: moderate). Two studies with 172 participants measured patient satisfaction; there were high levels of satisfaction across both aromatherapy and standard treatment groups and no differences found (evidence level: low). There were no data reported on nausea severity or adverse events for this comparison. There was no difference in effectiveness between isopropyl alcohol vapour inhalation and placebo for reducing the proportion of participants requiring rescue antiemetics (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.24, P value = 0.11, 291 participants, 4 trials, evidence level: very low). There were no data reported on nausea severity, nausea duration, adverse events or patient satisfaction for this comparison. Overall, for nausea severity at the end of treatment, aromatherapy may have similar effectiveness to placebo and similar numbers of participants were nausea-free. However, this finding is based on low-quality evidence and therefore very uncertain. Low-quality evidence also suggests that participants who received aromatherapy may need fewer antiemetic medications, but again, this is uncertain. Participants receiving either aromatherapy or antiemetic medications may report similar levels of satisfaction with their treatment, according to low-quality evidence.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "We examined a total of 16 controlled clinical studies using aromatherapy for PONV with a total of 1036 participants (seven new studies from the March 2017 searches were added to nine studies from the original review). The participants were adults except for two studies in children. The studies applied aromatherapy at the first complaint of nausea in the immediate period after surgery and measured nausea for up to two days. Aromatherapy substances used were isopropyl alcohol (rubbing alcohol), peppermint oil, ginger, or mixtures that included ginger, spearmint, peppermint and cardamom; or lavender, peppermint, ginger, and spearmint oils. The studies compared aromatherapy to saline or water placebo, controlled breathing, other aromatherapy substances, anti-nausea medications, or a combination of these, with some studies having up to four groups. Overall, aromatherapy was not effective in reducing nausea severity at greater than three minutes after treatment in comparison to saline, water or controlled breathing placebo (6 studies with 241 participants) but more participants who received aromatherapy were nausea-free at the end of treatment (4 studies, 193 participants) and fewer participants who received aromatherapy required anti-nausea medications (7 studies with 609 participants). Peppermint oil did not show an effect on nausea severity at five minutes after treatment (4 studies, 115 participants). We could not pool data for a comparison of isopropyl alcohol to standard anti-nausea medications for nausea severity. In terms of nausea duration, the time to 50% relief of symptoms was faster with isopropyl alcohol vapour than with standard antiemetics (ondansetron and promethazine) (3 studies, 176 participants). Aromatherapy using isopropyl alcohol vapour inhalation provided rapid, short-term relief of nausea and reduced the need for rescue anti-nausea drugs (4 studies, 215 participants). Patient satisfaction with aromatherapy appeared high in the four studies that measured this outcome. Fewer participants who received isopropyl alcohol aromatherapy required rescue anti-nausea drugs compared with those who received saline (4 studies, 291 participants). The participants receiving aromatherapy were not more likely to be free of nausea at the end of the treatment period however they were less likely to require rescue anti-nausea drugs. All participants in these studies (treatment and comparison groups) reported high levels of satisfaction, possibly indicating that increased attention to the care of postoperative nausea and vomiting improved satisfaction with their care. Aromatherapy may provide a useful therapeutic option, particularly when the alternative is no treatment at all. None of the included studies reported adverse effects from the aromatherapies used. Overall the evidence quality ranged from moderate to very low, as assessed by GRADE. There was a high risk of bias due to the design of some studies. The included studies consisted of 12 randomized controlled trials and 4 controlled clinical trials where participants were not randomly assigned to a treatment group. In most studies, participants and researchers were aware of group allocation and this may have had an influence on the results. The strong odours involved meant that aromatherapy was a difficult intervention to conceal from participants, research staff and those assessing outcomes. The different comparisons, time points and measurement scales limited the data that could be pooled. Some data were expressed as standardized scales and measures, which enabled pooling of results in meta-analyses. The data were incomplete for effects longer than 60 minutes." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "***TASK***\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***INPUT***\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***OUTPUT***\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***DOCUMENTATION***\n\n***EXAMPLES***\n\nInput: Thirty-nine studies examined the effect of printed educational materials for physicians, audit and feedback, educational meetings, educational outreach visits, financial and healthcare system changes, physician reminders, patient-based interventions and multi-faceted interventions. These interventions addressed the overuse of antibiotics for viral infections, the choice of antibiotic for bacterial infections such as streptococcal pharyngitis and urinary tract infection, and the duration of use of antibiotics for conditions such as acute otitis media. Use of printed educational materials or audit and feedback alone resulted in no or only small changes in prescribing. The exception was a study documenting a sustained reduction in macrolide use in Finland following the publication of a warning against their use for group A streptococcal infections. Interactive educational meetings appeared to be more effective than didactic lectures. Educational outreach visits and physician reminders produced mixed results. Patient-based interventions, particularly the use of delayed prescriptions for infections for which antibiotics were not immediately indicated effectively reduced antibiotic use by patients and did not result in excess morbidity. Multi-faceted interventions combining physician, patient and public education in a variety of venues and formats were the most successful in reducing antibiotic prescribing for inappropriate indications. Only one of four studies demonstrated a sustained reduction in the incidence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria associated with the intervention. The effectiveness of an intervention on antibiotic prescribing depends to a large degree on the particular prescribing behaviour and the barriers to change in the particular community. No single intervention can be recommended for all behaviours in any setting. Multi-faceted interventions where educational interventions occur on many levels may be successfully applied to communities after addressing local barriers to change. These were the only interventions with effect sizes of sufficient magnitude to potentially reduce the incidence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Future research should focus on which elements of these interventions are the most effective. In addition, patient-based interventions and physician reminders show promise and innovative methods such as these deserve further study.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "Research has shown that physicians in the community (in doctors' offices and clinics) can be partly to blame for resistant bacteria. Studies have shown that physicians inappropriately prescribe antibiotics for infections caused by viruses (such as the common cold). They also prescribe antibiotics that kill a wide variety of bacteria when an antibiotic that kills specific bacteria should be prescribed. Physicians may also prescribe the wrong dose for the wrong length of time. Inappropriate prescribing is due to many factors including patients who insist on antibiotics, physicians who do not have enough time to explain why antibiotics are not necessary and therefore simply prescribe them to save time, physicians who do not know when to prescribe antibiotics or how to recognise a serious bacterial infection, or physicians who are overly cautious. To improve how physicians prescribe antibiotics in the community, methods have been studied. In this review, 39 studies were analysed to determine what works. Using printed materials to educate physicians about prescribing or to give them feedback about how they prescribed did not improve their prescribing or only improved it by a small amount. Meetings to educate physicians improved their prescribing but lectures did not. It was not clear whether personal visits to the physicians by educators worked or not or whether reminders to physicians worked or not . The use of delayed prescriptions decreased use of antibiotics without increasing the risk of serious illness. A delayed prescription means the physician gives a patient a prescription for an antibiotic a few days after the doctor visit; it is thought that if the infection is not serious it will clear up on its own over that time and the patient does not need the antibiotics. The studies also found that using many methods together, such as the ones above, worked better than using one method alone. Since there are many reasons why physicians in the community prescribe antibiotics inappropriately, one method cannot be recommended. But using many methods to change prescribing may be successful." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "***TASK***\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***INPUT***\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***OUTPUT***\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***DOCUMENTATION***\n\n***EXAMPLES***\n\nInput: We included nine studies enrolling 220 dialysis participants. Seven studies were deemed to have moderate to high risk of bias. All studies were small in size and had a short follow-up period (two to six months). Studies evaluated the effects of six different interventions against placebo or standard treatment. The interventions studied included aerobic resistance exercise, gabapentin, ropinirole, levodopa, iron dextran, and vitamins C and E (individually and in combination). Aerobic resistance exercise showed a significant reduction in severity of RLS compared to no exercise (2 studies, 48 participants: MD -7.56, 95% CI -14.20 to -0.93; I2 = 65%), and when compared to exercise with no resistance (1 study, 24 participants: MD -11.10, 95% CI -17.11 to -5.09), however there was no significant reduction when compared to ropinirole (1 study, 22 participants): MD -0.55, 95% CI -6.41 to 5.31). There were no significant differences between aerobic resistance exercise and either no exercise or ropinirole in the physical or mental component summary scores (using the SF-36 form). Improvement in sleep quality varied. There was no significant difference in subjective sleep quality between exercise and no exercise; however one study reported a significant improvement with ropinirole compared to resistance exercise (MD 3.71, 95% CI 0.89 to 6.53). Using the Epworth Sleepiness Scale there were no significant differences between resistance exercise and no exercise, ropinirole, or exercise with no resistance. Two studies reported there were no adverse events and one study did not mention if there were any adverse events. In one study, one patient in each group dropped out but the reason for dropout was not reported. Two studies reported no adverse events and one study did not report adverse events. Gabapentin was associated with reduced RLS severity when compared to placebo or levodopa, and there was a significant improvement in sleep quality, latency and disturbance reported in one study when compared to levodopa. Three patients dropped out due to lethargy (2 patients), and drowsiness, syncope and fatigue (1 patient). Because of a short duration of action, rebound and augmentation were noted with levodopa treatment even though it conferred some benefit in reducing the symptoms of RLS. Reported adverse events were severe vomiting, agitation after caffeine intake, headaches, dry mouth, and gastrointestinal symptoms. One study (25 participants) reported iron dextran reduced the severity of RLS at weeks one and two, but not at week four. Vitamins C, E and C plus E (1 study, 60 participants) helped the symptoms of RLS with minimal side effects (nausea and dyspepsia) but more evidence is needed before any conclusions can be drawn. Given the small size of the studies and short follow-up, it can only be concluded that pharmacological interventions and intra-dialytic exercise programs have uncertain effects on RLS in haemodialysis patients. There have been no studies performed in non-dialysis CKD, peritoneal dialysis patients, or kidney transplant recipients. Further studies are warranted before any conclusions can be drawn. Aerobic resistance exercise and ropinirole may be suitable interventions for further evaluation.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "The quality of the studies was deemed to be moderate. Of the nine studies, one was sponsored by a pharmaceutical company and funding sources were reported for only two other studies. The included studies were heterogeneous, small in size and had short follow-up periods. The interventions studied included exercise, gabapentin, ropinirole, levodopa, iron dextran, and vitamins C and E (individually and in combination). All interventions reduced the severity of RLS compared to a control. Intradialytic aerobic exercise reduced the severity of RLS however the safety of this intervention is unclear. Resistance exercise did not improve sleep quality but improved the mental health component on a quality of life questionnaire. This improvement in mental health component was not significant when compared to no exercise or ropinirole. Ropinirole reduced the symptoms of RLS and improved quality of sleep without any reported side effects. Gabapentin and levodopa improved the symptoms of RLS; however there were several adverse events reported included lethargy, drowsiness and fatigue for gabapentin, and vomiting, agitation, headaches, dry mouth, and gastrointestinal symptoms for levodopa. Iron dextran infusion reduced the symptoms of RLS but was only significant up to two weeks after treatment. Vitamin C, E and their combination also reduced RLS symptoms with minimal side effects. Small size and short duration of follow-up were the major drawbacks of these studies. The small number of studies, small sample sizes and short duration of follow up make it difficult to draw any firm conclusions. The effects of aerobic exercise and other pharmacological agents on RLS are uncertain in haemodialysis patients. There is a need to perform high quality randomised studies to establish the best treatment for RLS in patients with CKD. Aerobic exercise and ropinirole may be suitable interventions for further evaluation." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "***TASK***\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***INPUT***\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***OUTPUT***\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***DOCUMENTATION***\n\n***EXAMPLES***\n\nInput: We included 12 eligible trials with a total of 1450 mothers and 1204 known infants. Eleven trials administered probiotics to mothers during pregnancy and one trial administered probiotics to mothers after birth of their preterm infants. No studies compared maternal probiotic administration directly with neonatal administration. Included prenatal trials were highly variable in the indication for the trial, the gestational age and duration of administration of probiotics, as well as the dose and formulation of the probiotics. The pregnant women included in these trials were overall at low risk for preterm birth. In a meta-analysis of trial data, oral probiotic administration to pregnant women did not reduce the incidence of preterm birth < 37 weeks (typical risk ratio (RR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32 to 2.67; 4 studies, 518 mothers and 506 infants), < 34 weeks (typical risk difference (RD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; 2 studies, 287 mothers and infants), the incidence of infant mortality (typical RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; 2 studies, 309 mothers and 298 infants), or the gestational age at birth (mean difference (MD) 0.15, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.63; 2 studies, 209 mothers with 207 infants). One trial studied administration of probiotics to mothers after preterm birth and included 49 mothers and 58 infants. There were no significant differences in the risk of any NEC (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.46; 1 study, 58 infants), surgery for NEC (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.58; 1 study, 58 infants), death (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.06 to 6.88; 1 study, 58 infants), and death or NEC (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.49; 1 study, 58 infants). There was an improvement in time to reach 50% enteral feeds in infants whose mothers received probiotics, but the estimate is imprecise (MD -9.60 days, 95% CI -19.04 to -0.16 days; 58 infants). No other improvement in any neonatal outcomes were reported. The estimates were imprecise and do not exclude the possibility of meaningful harms or benefits from maternal probiotic administration. There were no cases of culture-proven sepsis with the probiotic organism. The GRADE quality of evidence was judged to be low to very low due to inconsistency and imprecision. There is insufficient evidence to conclude whether there is appreciable benefit or harm to neonates of either oral supplementation of probiotics administered to pregnant women at low risk for preterm birth or oral supplementation of probiotics to mothers of preterm infants after birth. Oral supplementation of probiotics to mothers of preterm infants after birth may decrease time to 50% enteral feeds, however, this estimate is extremely imprecise. More research is needed for post-natal administration of probiotics to mothers of preterm infants, as well as to pregnant mothers at high risk for preterm birth.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "Twelve eligible trials with a total of 1450 mothers and 1204 known infants were included from searches, up to date as of March 2017. Eleven trials gave probiotics to mothers during pregnancy and one trial gave probiotics to mothers after the birth of their preterm infants. No studies compared maternal probiotic administration directly versus neonatal administration.The studies of pregnant women focused on various aspects of the studies with different probiotics given at different times. The pregnant women included in these trials were overall at low risk for preterm birth. The one trial with mothers given probiotics after birth was to mothers of infants who weighed less than 1500 g at birth. There is insufficient evidence to conclude whether there is appreciable benefit or harm to neonates of either oral supplementation of probiotics administered to pregnant women at low risk for preterm birth or oral supplementation of probiotics to mothers of preterm infants after birth. There were no trials that gave mothers at high risk for having a premature infant probiotics, so the effects of probiotics given to those mothers is unknown. More studies are needed to know if probiotics given to mothers of preterm infants decreases death, necrotizing enterocolitis, or other problems related to prematurity. In general, the evidence was of low to very low quality due to imprecision (small sample sizes) and indirectness (enrolled mothers were not necessarily at high risk for delivering their babies early)." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "***TASK***\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***INPUT***\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***OUTPUT***\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***DOCUMENTATION***\n\n***EXAMPLES***\n\nInput: We included one trial comparing oral dextrose gel versus placebo in 416 infants at risk of hypoglycaemia. We judged this trial to be at low risk of bias. Using the GRADE method, we determined that evidence ranged from high quality to moderate quality. For outcomes selected for the GRADE analysis, we found the following. • Oral dextrose gel prophylaxis (any dose) is associated with reduced risk of neonatal hypoglycaemia compared with placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.94; one RCT; n = 415 infants; high-quality evidence). The risk difference (RD) is -0.13 (95% CI -0.23 to -0.03), and on average, 8.3 infants would have to receive prophylactic dextrose gel to prevent one additional case of neonatal hypoglycaemia. • Investigators found no statistically significant differences between dextrose gel and placebo groups in the number of adverse events (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.17; one RCT; n = 413 infants; moderate-quality evidence); separation from mother for treatment of hypoglycaemia (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.01; one RCT, n = 415 infants; moderate-quality evidence); exclusive breastfeeding at discharge (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.15; one RCT; n = 415 women; moderate-quality evidence); or breastfeeding at six weeks postpartum (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.29; one RCT; n = 386 women; moderate-quality evidence). • Researchers provided no data for the other prespecified GRADE outcomes for this review (major neurological disability at two years of age or older; receipt of treatment for hypoglycaemia during initial hospital stay; receipt of intravenous treatment for hypoglycaemia). Oral dextrose gel reduced the risk of neonatal hypoglycaemia in at-risk infants in a single trial. Results showed no statistically significant differences in the number of adverse events or in risk of separation of infant from mother for treatment of hypoglycaemia between babies who received oral dextrose gel and those given placebo. Caution is suggested in interpreting data for the latter two outcomes owing to low event rates. Available evidence is limited to a cohort of at-risk infants, most of whom were infants of diabetic mothers and were treated on the postnatal ward. Minimal data available for many of the prespecified outcomes of this review showed no long-term neurodevelopmental and disability outcomes. Additional evidence is needed to assess the efficacy and safety of dextrose gel for prevention of neonatal hypoglycaemia.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "During searches updated to January 2017, we found one study (with low risk of bias) that compared oral dextrose gel versus placebo for prevention of low blood glucose levels in 415 at-risk babies. Evidence from this single study suggests that in babies at risk, oral dextrose gel followed by a feed is associated with reduced risk of low blood glucose levels when compared with placebo (high-quality evidence). Results showed no statistically significant differences between oral dextrose gel and placebo in terms of the number of adverse events (moderate-quality evidence), risk of separation of baby from mother for treatment of low glucose levels (moderate-quality evidence), exclusive breastfeeding at discharge (moderate-quality evidence), or continued breastfeeding at six weeks of age (moderate-quality evidence). We must be careful when interpreting the evidence for adverse events and separation of mother and baby, as a small number of events have been reported for these outcomes. Researchers provided no data on long-term outcomes including developmental and disability outcomes. Available evidence came from only one study, and no long-term outcome data have been reported. Additionally, this study considers only oral dextrose gel compared with placebo and does not consider other measures that could potentially prevent hypoglycaemia. Therefore, not enough evidence is available at this time to support the routine use of oral dextrose gel for prevention of hypoglycaemia in newborn babies at risk. Childhood follow-up of the single study included here is under way, and an additional ongoing study is seeking to determine the effect of oral dextrose gel on preventing admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). We advise waiting for data on outcomes of these additional studies to assess the longer-term safety and efficacy of oral dextrose gel for prevention of neonatal hypoglycaemia." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "***TASK***\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***INPUT***\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***OUTPUT***\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***DOCUMENTATION***\n\n***EXAMPLES***\n\nInput: Ten new studies have been added to this update; 18 studies with a total 1215 participants are now included. These examined effects of music therapy over the short, medium, and long-term, with treatment dosage varying from seven to 240 sessions. Overall, most information is from studies at low or unclear risk of bias A positive effect on global state was found for music therapy compared to standard care (medium term, 2 RCTs, n = 133, RR 0.38 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24 to 0.59, low-quality evidence, number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome NNTB 2, 95% CI 2 to 4). No binary data were available for other outcomes. Medium-term continuous data identified good effects for music therapy on negative symptoms using the Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms (3 RCTs, n = 177, SMD - 0.55 95% CI -0.87 to -0.24, low-quality evidence). General mental state endpoint scores on the Positive and Negative Symptoms Scale were better for music therapy (2 RCTs, n = 159, SMD -0.97 95% CI -1.31 to -0.63, low-quality evidence), as were average endpoint scores on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (1 RCT, n = 70, SMD -1.25 95% CI -1.77 to -0.73, moderate-quality evidence). Medium-term average endpoint scores using the Global Assessment of Functioning showed no effect for music therapy on general functioning (2 RCTs, n = 118, SMD -0.19 CI -0.56 to 0.18, moderate-quality evidence). However, positive effects for music therapy were found for both social functioning (Social Disability Screening Schedule scores; 2 RCTs, n = 160, SMD -0.72 95% CI -1.04 to -0.40), and quality of life (General Well-Being Schedule scores: 1 RCT, n = 72, SMD 1.82 95% CI 1.27 to 2.38, moderate-quality evidence). There were no data available for adverse effects, service use, engagement with services, or cost. Moderate- to low-quality evidence suggests that music therapy as an addition to standard care improves the global state, mental state (including negative and general symptoms), social functioning, and quality of life of people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like disorders. However, effects were inconsistent across studies and depended on the number of music therapy sessions as well as the quality of the music therapy provided. Further research should especially address the long-term effects of music therapy, dose-response relationships, as well as the relevance of outcome measures in relation to music therapy.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "We ran electronic searches up to January 2015 for trials randomising people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like disorders to receive music therapy or standard care. We found and checked 176 potential studies. Eighteen trials with a total of 1215 participants met the review requirements and provided useful data. The evidence currently available is of low to moderate quality. The results of these studies suggest that music therapy improves global state and may also improve mental state, functioning, and quality of life if a sufficient number of music therapy sessions are provided. Music therapy seems to help people with schizophrenia but further research is needed to confirm the positive effects found in this review. This research should especially address the long-term effects of music therapy, the quality of music therapy provided and measure outcomes relevant to music therapy." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "***TASK***\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***INPUT***\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***OUTPUT***\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***DOCUMENTATION***\n\n***EXAMPLES***\n\nInput: None of the 1328 studies that were identified satisfied the inclusion criteria. Based on this review, we cannot make any new recommendations on the effectiveness of adrenaline auto-injectors for the treatment of anaphylaxis. Although randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials of high methodological quality are necessary to define the true extent of benefits from the administration of adrenaline in anaphylaxis via an auto-injector, such trials are unlikely to be performed in individuals experiencing anaphylaxis because of ethical concerns associated with randomization to placebo. There is, however, a need to consider trials in which, for example, auto-injectors of different doses of adrenaline and differing devices are compared in order to provide greater clarity on the dose and device of choice. Such trials would be practically challenging to conduct. In the absence of appropriate trials, we recommend that adrenaline administration by auto-injector should still be regarded as the most effective first-line treatment for the management of anaphylaxis in the community. In countries where auto-injectors are not commonly used, it may be possible to conduct trials to compare administration of adrenaline via auto-injector with adrenaline administered by syringe and ampoule, or comparing the effectiveness of two different types of auto-injector.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "We therefore conducted a systematic review of the literature, searching key databases for high quality published and unpublished material on the use of adrenaline auto-injectors during episodes of anaphylaxis in the community. We also contacted the relevant pharmaceutical companies to see if they had any such information on the topic. Our searches found many studies relating to anaphylaxis and adrenaline auto-injector use but no randomized controlled trials on this subject. We concluded that the use of adrenaline auto-injectors in anaphylaxis is based on the best available information at present. There is no evidence from randomized controlled trials for the effectiveness of adrenaline auto-injectors in the emergency treatment of anaphylaxis in the community. Such trials would ideally involve comparison of adrenaline with placebo; however, use of a placebo in anaphylaxis treatment would be unethical. We therefore recommend that auto-injectors remain the medication of first choice in the treatment of anaphylaxis in the community." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "***TASK***\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***INPUT***\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***OUTPUT***\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***DOCUMENTATION***\n\n***EXAMPLES***\n\nInput: We included 20 RCTs involving a total of 1681 individual participants and 1172 individual legs (2853 analytic units). Of these 20 trials, 10 included patients undergoing general surgery; six included patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery; three individual trials included patients undergoing neurosurgery, cardiac surgery, and gynaecological surgery, respectively; and only one trial included medical patients. Graduated compression stockings were applied on the day before surgery or on the day of surgery and were worn up until discharge or until the participants were fully mobile. In the majority of the included studies DVT was identified by the radioactive I125 uptake test. Duration of follow-up ranged from seven to 14 days. The included studies were at an overall low risk of bias. We were able to pool the data from 20 studies reporting the incidence of DVT. In the GCS group, 134 of 1445 units developed DVT (9%) in comparison to the control group (without GCS), in which 290 of 1408 units developed DVT (21%). The Peto odds ratio (OR) was 0.35 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28 to 0.43; 20 studies; 2853 units; high-quality evidence), showing an overall effect favouring treatment with GCS (P < 0.001). Based on results from eight included studies, the incidence of proximal DVT was 7 of 517 (1%) units in the GCS group and 28 of 518 (5%) units in the control group. The Peto OR was 0.26 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.53; 8 studies; 1035 units; moderate-quality evidence) with an overall effect favouring treatment with GCS (P < 0.001). Combining results from five studies, all based on surgical patients, the incidence of PE was 5 of 283 (2%) participants in the GCS group and 14 of 286 (5%) in the control group. The Peto OR was 0.38 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.96; 5 studies; 569 participants; low-quality evidence) with an overall effect favouring treatment with GCS (P = 0.04). We downgraded the quality of the evidence for proximal DVT and PE due to low event rate (imprecision) and lack of routine screening for PE (inconsistency). We carried out subgroup analysis by speciality (surgical or medical patients). Combining results from 19 trials focusing on surgical patients, 134 of 1365 (9.8%) units developed DVT in the GCS group compared to 282 of 1328 (21.2%) units in the control group. The Peto OR was 0.35 (95% CI 0.28 to 0.44; high-quality evidence), with an overall effect favouring treatment with GCS (P < 0.001). Based on results from seven included studies, the incidence of proximal DVT was 7 of 437 units (1.6%) in the GCS group and 28 of 438 (6.4%) in the control group. The Peto OR was 0.26 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.53; 875 units; moderate-quality evidence) with an overall effect favouring treatment with GCS (P < 0.001). We downgraded the evidence for proximal DVT due to low event rate (imprecision). Based on the results from one trial focusing on medical patients admitted following acute myocardial infarction, 0 of 80 (0%) legs developed DVT in the GCS group and 8 of 80 (10%) legs developed DVT in the control group. The Peto OR was 0.12 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.51; low-quality evidence) with an overall effect favouring treatment with GCS (P = 0.004). None of the medical patients in either group developed a proximal DVT, and the incidence of PE was not reported. Limited data were available to accurately assess the incidence of adverse effects and complications with the use of GCS as these were not routinely quantitatively reported in the included studies. There is high-quality evidence that GCS are effective in reducing the risk of DVT in hospitalised patients who have undergone general and orthopaedic surgery, with or without other methods of background thromboprophylaxis, where clinically appropriate. There is moderate-quality evidence that GCS probably reduce the risk of proximal DVT, and low-quality evidence that GCS may reduce the risk of PE. However, there remains a paucity of evidence to assess the effectiveness of GCS in diminishing the risk of DVT in medical patients.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "We identified 20 randomised controlled trials (studies in which participants are assigned to a treatment group using a random method) (2853 analytic units consisting of 1681 individual patients and 1172 individual legs) in our most recent search on 12 June 2018. Nine trials compared wearing stockings to no stockings, and 11 compared stockings plus another method with that method alone. The other methods used were dextran 70, aspirin, heparin, and mechanical sequential compression. Of the 20 trials, 10 included patients undergoing general surgery; six included patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery; three individual trials included patients undergoing neurosurgery, cardiac surgery, and gynaecological surgery, respectively; and only one trial included medical patients (patients who were admitted to the hospital for reasons other than surgery). The compression stockings were applied on the day before surgery or on the day of surgery and were worn up until discharge or until the patients were fully mobile. Thigh-length stockings were used in the vast majority of included studies. The included studies were of good quality overall. We found that wearing GCS reduced the overall risk of developing DVT, and probably also DVT in the thighs. We found that GCS may also reduce the risk of PE amongst patients undergoing surgery. As only one trial included medical patients, results for this population are limited. The occurrence of problems associated with wearing GCS was poorly reported in the included studies. Our review confirmed that GCS are effective in reducing the risk of DVT in hospitalised surgical patients (high-quality evidence). It also demonstrated that GCS probably reduce the risk of developing DVT in the thighs (proximal DVT, moderate-quality evidence) and PE (low-quality evidence). Reasons for downgrading the quality of the evidence included low event rate (i.e. small number of participants who developed DVT) and uncertainty due to only a small number of patients being routinely screened for proximal DVT or PE. Limited evidence was available for hospitalised medical patients, with only one study suggesting that GCS may prevent DVT in such patients." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "***TASK***\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***INPUT***\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***OUTPUT***\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***DOCUMENTATION***\n\n***EXAMPLES***\n\nInput: We only considered one study eligible for this review (20 participants). Assessments of risk of bias for most domains were unclear or low. Adverse events were only reported in participants from the zonisamide group, making it possible that they were aware of treatment group assignment. We are uncertain as to the effects of zonisamide on motor tasks (mean difference (MD) -0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.51 to 1.51, very low-quality evidence) and functional disabilities (MD -0.30, 95% CI -1.23 to 0.63, very low-quality evidence) when compared with placebo. Three participants in the zonisamide group (30%) and two participants in the placebo group (20%) discontinued the treatment and withdrew from the study for any reason (very low-quality evidence), however the increased risk of withdrawal in the zonisamide group was statistically non-significant (risk difference (RD) 0.1, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.48). Six participants in the zonisamide group (60%) and none of the participants in the placebo group (0%) developed adverse events (AEs), with a RD of 0.60 (95% CI 0.28 to 0.92; very low quality evidence). The most common AEs, experienced with zonisamide treatment, were headache, nausea, fatigue, sleepiness, and diarrhoea. Quality of life was not assessed in the study included. Based on currently available data, there is insufficient evidence to assess the efficacy and safety of zonisamide treatment for ET.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "We found one study comparing zonisamide versus placebo, involving a total of 20 randomised participants with essential tremor. The impact of zonisamide on functional abilities, risk of treatment discontinuation, and adverse events is uncertain because the quality of evidence is very low. Adverse events were only reported in participants from the zonisamide group, making it possible that they were aware of which treatment they had been receiving. Quality of life was not assessed in the study included. The single study we found was small and the possibility of study participants becoming aware of the treatment group means that we cannot be certain about the risk-benefit profile of this treatment." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "***TASK***\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***INPUT***\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***OUTPUT***\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***DOCUMENTATION***\n\n***EXAMPLES***\n\nInput: Out of 14,717 citations, only one study met the inclusion criteria. The included RCT recruited women and girl children who received post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) after rape from sexual assault services in South Africa between August 2007 and May 2008. Participants (n (number) =274) were randomised into a telephone support (n=136) and control (n=138) group. Control group participants received usual care (an interactive information session) from the sexual assault service during the 28 days in which they had to take PEP, with no further contact from the study staff. Telephone support group participants received standard care and phone calls from a counsellor throughout the 28 days when they had to take PEP. Overall, adherence to PEP was not significantly (P=0.13) different between the intervention (38.2%) and control (31.9 %) groups. Also, the proportion of participants who read a pamphlet, did not return to collect medication or with a depression were not significantly different between the intervention and control groups (P=0.006, P=0.42, P=0.72 respectively). The proportion of participants who used a diary was significantly (P=0.001) higher in the intervention group (78.8%) versus the control group (69.9%). The study authors reported that there were no recorded adverse events. The RCT did not provide information about participants’ and providers’ evaluation outcomes, or economic outcomes. The study had a moderate risk of bias. We found only one RCT, with a moderate risk of bias, which showed that providing PEP support by phone calls did not result in higher adherence to PEP. However, the RCT was conducted in an upper-middle-income country with high HIV prevalence, on a high-risk population and the applicability of its results on other settings and contexts is unclear. There is a need for robust evidence from various settings on the effectiveness of using phone calls for providing PEP support and for other HIV prevention interventions.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "The aim of this review was to assess the effectiveness HIV prevention interventions delivered by phone calls compared to the standard way of delivering care. After a comprehensive search of various scientific databases and other resources, we found only one relevant study. This study was done in sexual assault services in South Africa. Study participants were women and girls who were given medication to prevent HIV infection (so called 'post-exposure prophylaxis' or 'PEP') after they had been raped. The participants were divided into two groups: one group of participants only received standard care and participants in the other group were given standard care and support via telephone calls to help them take their HIV prevention medication. Overall, only about one third of the participants took their HIV prevention medication for 28 days. The participants who received the phone calls were not more likely to take their medication than participants who only received standard care. Also, the phone calls did not decrease the number of participants with depression and did not increase the number of participants who read an information pamphlet or returned to collect HIV prevention medication. Only a higher percentage of participants who received the calls used a medication diary compared to the participants who did not receive the calls. No harmful effects of this intervention were reported. We could not find any information about other relevant outcomes, such as participants’ and healthcare providers’ satisfaction with the telephone intervention or costs. We urgently need more studies conducted in various settings comparing the effectiveness of the phone calls to other ways of delivering HIV prevention interventions to prevent new HIV infections." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "***TASK***\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***INPUT***\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***OUTPUT***\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***DOCUMENTATION***\n\n***EXAMPLES***\n\nInput: We included five studies with 1601 children in the review. Pooled analysis demonstrated that the following outcomes were comparable between the two groups: clinical cure at the end of therapy (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.07); during therapy (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.33) and at follow-up (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.09); recurrent AOM (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.52 to 2.81); compliance rate (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.10) and overall adverse events (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.63). When we performed subgroup analysis separately for trials with amoxicillin only and amoxicillin/clavulanate only, it showed that all important outcomes were comparable between once or twice daily groups and the three times daily group. The risk of bias amongst the five included studies was as follows: for random sequence generation we graded two studies as low and three unclear risk of bias; for allocation concealment all studies were at unclear risk of bias; for blinding (performance and detection bias) we graded four as high and one as unclear risk of bias; for incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) we graded two low, two high and one as unclear risk of bias; for reporting bias four were at low and one at high risk; and for ‘other’ bias four were at low and one at unclear risk of bias. This review showed that the results of using once or twice daily doses of amoxicillin, with or without clavulanate, were comparable with three doses for the treatment of AOM.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "We identified five randomised clinical studies with 1601 children comparing two dosing schedules. Participants were aged 12 years or younger with AOM. The primary outcome was clinical cure rate in terms of resolution of otalgia and fever at the end of antibiotic therapy (days seven to 15). The secondary outcomes were clinical cure rate in terms of middle ear effusion during therapy, clinical cure rate post-treatment (one to three months) in terms of resolution of middle ear infection, AOM complications and adverse events to medication. The results showed that treating acute middle ear infection with either once/twice daily or three times daily amoxicillin, with or without clavulanate, has the same results using our outcome measures, including adverse events such as diarrhoea and skin reactions. The evidence is current to March 2013." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "***TASK***\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***INPUT***\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***OUTPUT***\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***DOCUMENTATION***\n\n***EXAMPLES***\n\nInput: There are 77 studies included in this updated review. We retained 12 studies from the original review and identified 65 new studies. Evidence from 21 countries is provided in this update, an increase of eight countries from the original review. The nature of the intervention precludes randomized controlled trials. Thirty-six studies used an interrupted time series study design, 23 studies use a controlled before-and-after design and 18 studies are before-and-after studies with no control group; six of these studies use a cohort design. Seventy-two studies reported health outcomes, including cardiovascular (44), respiratory (21), and perinatal outcomes (7). Eleven studies reported national mortality rates for smoking-related diseases. A number of the studies report multiple health outcomes. There is consistent evidence of a positive impact of national smoking bans on improving cardiovascular health outcomes, and reducing mortality for associated smoking-related illnesses. Effects on respiratory and perinatal health were less consistent. We found 24 studies evaluating the impact of national smoke-free legislation on smoking behaviour. Evidence of an impact of legislative bans on smoking prevalence and tobacco consumption is inconsistent, with some studies not detecting additional long-term change in existing trends in prevalence. Since the first version of this review was published, the current evidence provides more robust support for the previous conclusions that the introduction of a legislative smoking ban does lead to improved health outcomes through reduction in SHS for countries and their populations. The clearest evidence is observed in reduced admissions for acute coronary syndrome. There is evidence of reduced mortality from smoking-related illnesses at a national level. There is inconsistent evidence of an impact on respiratory and perinatal health outcomes, and on smoking prevalence and tobacco consumption.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "We searched for studies that investigated the effect of introducing a ban on any measures of health, or on smoking behaviour (up to February 2015). Since the previous version of this review had shown clear evidence that introducing legislation to ban smoking in public places does reduce exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) in those places, we did not include studies that only reported exposure to SHS. We included 77 studies from 21 countries in this updated review. Studies of health outcomes typically used data from hospitals to look for changes in rates of admissions, discharges or deaths. Most studies looked at illnesses related to the cardiovascular system (heart or blood vessels), such as heart attacks and strokes. Studies also looked at effects on respiratory health, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (e.g. bronchitis), asthma and lung function. Seven studies looked at the health of newborn children. Eleven studies reported death rates. The best-quality studies collected data at multiple time points before and after the introduction of a ban in order to adjust for existing time trends. Some studies could compare events rates in areas with and without bans, or where bans were introduced at different times. Key results There is evidence that countries and their populations benefit from improved health after introducing smoking bans, importantly to do with the heart and blood vessels. We found evidence of reduced deaths. The impact of bans on respiratory health, on the health of newborn children, and on reducing the number of smokers and their cigarette use is not as clear, with some studies not detecting any reduction. Quality of the evidence Legislative bans have not been evaluated by randomized trials, and the quality of the evidence from the types of studies contributing to this review is lower. Changes in health outcomes could be due to other things, such as change in healthcare practices. However, many of the studies used methods of analysis that could control for underlying trends, and increase our confidence that any changes are caused by the introduction of bans." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "***TASK***\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***INPUT***\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***OUTPUT***\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***DOCUMENTATION***\n\n***EXAMPLES***\n\nInput: We identified five studies (one cluster RCT, three RCTs and one NRCT), evaluating the effectiveness of dental auxiliaries compared with dentists in providing dental care traditionally provided by dentists, eligible for inclusion in this review. The included studies, which involved 13 dental auxiliaries, six dentists, and more than 1156 participants, evaluated two clinical tasks/techniques: placement of preventive resin fissure sealants and the atraumatic restorative technique (ART). Two studies were conducted in the US, and one each in Canada, Gambia and Singapore. Of the four studies evaluating effectiveness in placing preventive resin fissure sealants, three found no evidence of a difference in retention rates of those placed by dental auxiliaries and dentists over a range of follow-up periods (six to 24 months). One study found that fissure sealants placed by a dental auxiliary had lower retention rates than one placed by a dentist after 48 months (9.0% with auxiliary versus 29.1% with dentist). The same study reported that the net reduction after 48 months in the number teeth exhibiting caries (dental decay) was lower for teeth treated by the dental auxiliary than the dentist (3 with auxiliary versus 60 with dentist, P value < 0.001). One study showed no evidence of a difference in dental decay after treatment with fissure sealants between groups. The one study comparing the effectiveness of dental auxiliaries and dentists in performing ART reported no difference in survival rates of the restorations (fillings) after 12 months. All studies were at high risk of bias and the overall quality of the evidence was very low, as assessed using the GRADE approach. In addition, four of the included studies were more than 20 years old; the materials used and the techniques assessed were out of date. We found no eligible studies comparing the effectiveness of dental auxiliaries and dentists in the diagnosis of oral diseases and conditions, in delivering oral health education and other aspects of health promotion, or studies assessing participants' perspectives including the acceptability of care received. None of the included studies reported adverse effects. In addition, we found no studies comparing the costs and cost-effectiveness of dental auxiliaries and dentists, their impact on access and equity of access to care that met the pre-specified inclusion criteria. We only identified five studies for inclusion in this review, all of which were at high risk of bias and four were published more than 20 years ago, highlighting the paucity of high-quality evaluations of the relative effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of dental auxiliaries compared with dentists in performing clinical tasks. No firm conclusions could be drawn from the present review about the relative effectiveness of dental auxiliaries and dentists.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "We searched the literature up to November 2013 and found five studies (involving 13 dental auxiliaries, six dentists, and more than 1156 participants) evaluating the effectiveness of dental auxiliaries compared with dentists in providing care traditionally delivered by dentists for inclusion in this review. These studies evaluated only two clinical tasks/techniques: placement of preventive resin sealants, which are designed to prevent dental decay in the pits and grooves of back teeth; and the atraumatic restorative technique (ART), which is a method of filling teeth that does not require motorised instruments (e.g. dental drills). Two studies were conducted in the US, and one in each of Canada, Gambia and Singapore. Of the four studies comparing dental auxiliaries and dentists in placing preventive sealants, three found no differences between the two groups in the proportion of sealants that were still intact over different time periods (six to 24 months). One study found that fewer sealants placed by a dental auxiliary were still intact after 48 months than those placed by a dentist. The same study reported that dental decay was more likely to develop in teeth that had been sealed by the dental auxiliary than the dentist, whereas another study reported no evidence of a difference between the groups. The one study comparing the effectiveness of dental auxiliaries and dentists in performing ART reported no evidence of a difference in the proportion that needed replacing or that had developed new decay after 12 months. None of the studies reported adverse events. In addition, none of the studies compared the costs and cost effectiveness of dental auxiliaries and dentists, or considered any impacts on access to care. Too few studies were included in this review to draw any firm conclusions about the relative effectiveness of dental auxiliaries and dentists. The included studies, of which four were more than 20 years old, were of low quality, had few participants and only considered two clinical tasks. This review highlights the lack of high-quality studies comparing the effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness, of dental auxiliaries and dentists in performing dental care traditionally delivered by dentists." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "***TASK***\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***INPUT***\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***OUTPUT***\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***DOCUMENTATION***\n\n***EXAMPLES***\n\nInput: Forty-five RCTs were identified and, from these, 26 trials including a total of 1217 participants and 2120 implants were included. Two trials were at low risk of bias, 12 were at high risk of bias and for the remaining 12 the risk of bias was unclear. In nine of the included studies there were no prosthetic failures within the first year, with no implant failures in seven studies and the mean rate of implant failure in all 26 trials was a low 2.5%. From 15 RCTs comparing immediate with conventional loading there was no evidence of a difference in either prosthesis failure (RR 1.90; 95% CI 0.67 to 5.34; 8 trials) or implant failure (RR 1.50; 95% CI 0.60 to 3.77; 10 trials) in the first year, but there is some evidence of a small reduction in bone loss favouring immediate loading (MD -0.10 mm; 95% CI -0.20 to -0.01; P = 0.03; 9 trials), with some heterogeneity (Tau² = 0.01; Chi² = 14.37, df = 8 (P = 0.07); I² = 44%). However, this very small difference may not be clinically important. From three RCTs which compared early loading with conventional loading, there is insufficient evidence to determine whether or not there is a clinically important difference in prosthesis failure, implant failure or bone loss. Six RCTs compared immediate and early loading and found insufficient evidence to determine whether or not there is a clinically important difference in prosthesis failure, implant failure or bone loss. From the two trials which compared occlusal loading with non-occlusal loading there is insufficient evidence to determine whether there is a clinically important difference in the outcomes of prosthesis failure, implant failure or bone loss. We did not identify any trials which evaluated progressive loading of implants. Overall there was no convincing evidence of a clinically important difference in prosthesis failure, implant failure, or bone loss associated with different loading times of implants. The quality of the evidence is assessed as very low due to high and unclear risk of bias of primary studies and there is some evidence of reporting bias so clinicians should treat these findings with caution. A high value of insertion torque (at least 35 Ncm) seems to be one of the prerequisites for a successful immediate/early loading procedure. More well-designed RCTs are needed and should be reported according to the CONSORT guidelines (www.consort-statement.org/), and registered with a trials registry.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "This review looked at the effects of attaching artificial teeth either the same day that the implant was placed, or early (after only 6 weeks) compared to the usual delay of at least 3 months. Some studies also compared the artifical tooth being attached so that it did not touch the opposite tooth (non-occlusal loading). The search of studies was updated on 8th June 2012. The review found no evidence that attaching artificial teeth either immediately, after 6 weeks (early) or after at least 3 months (conventional) led to any important differences in the failure of the implant or the artifical tooth, or to the amount of bone which surrounded the implant (any bone loss would be an undesirable consequence). More research is needed in this area." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "***TASK***\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***INPUT***\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***OUTPUT***\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***DOCUMENTATION***\n\n***EXAMPLES***\n\nInput: Nineteen trials involving 10,667 women were included. Risk of bias in trials was difficult to assess accurately due to incomplete reporting. None of the evidence relating to our main outcomes was graded as high quality. The quality of evidence was downgraded due to missing information on trial methods, imprecision in risk estimates and heterogeneity. Eighteen of these studies compared the use of Doppler ultrasound of the umbilical artery of the unborn baby with no Doppler or with cardiotocography (CTG). One more recent trial compared Doppler examination of other fetal blood vessels (ductus venosus) with computerised CTG. The use of Doppler ultrasound of the umbilical artery in high-risk pregnancy was associated with fewer perinatal deaths (risk ratio (RR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52 to 0.98, 16 studies, 10,225 babies, 1.2% versus 1.7 %, number needed to treat (NNT) = 203; 95% CI 103 to 4352, evidence graded moderate). The results for stillbirths were consistent with the overall rate of perinatal deaths, although there was no clear difference between groups for this outcome (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.04; 15 studies, 9560 babies, evidence graded low). Where Doppler ultrasound was used, there were fewer inductions of labour (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.99, 10 studies, 5633 women, random-effects, evidence graded moderate) and fewer caesarean sections (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.97, 14 studies, 7918 women, evidence graded moderate). There was no comparative long-term follow-up of babies exposed to Doppler ultrasound in pregnancy in women at increased risk of complications. No difference was found in operative vaginal births (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.14, four studies, 2813 women), nor in Apgar scores less than seven at five minutes (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.24, seven studies, 6321 babies, evidence graded low). Data for serious neonatal morbidity were not pooled due to high heterogeneity between the three studies that reported it (1098 babies) (evidence graded very low). The use of Doppler to evaluate early and late changes in ductus venosus in early fetal growth restriction was not associated with significant differences in any perinatal death after randomisation. However, there was an improvement in long-term neurological outcome in the cohort of babies in whom the trigger for delivery was either late changes in ductus venosus or abnormalities seen on computerised CTG. Current evidence suggests that the use of Doppler ultrasound on the umbilical artery in high-risk pregnancies reduces the risk of perinatal deaths and may result in fewer obstetric interventions. The results should be interpreted with caution, as the evidence is not of high quality. Serial monitoring of Doppler changes in ductus venosus may be beneficial, but more studies of high quality with follow-up including neurological development are needed for evidence to be conclusive.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "We searched for evidence in March 2017. We found 19 trials involving over 10,000 women. Eighteen of these studies compared the use of Doppler ultrasound of the umbilical artery of the unborn baby with no Doppler or with cardiotocography (CTG, sometimes called electronic fetal monitoring). One more recent trial compared Doppler examination of other fetal blood vessels (ductus venosus) with computerised CTG (short-term variation). Evidence from included studies was assessed as moderate to very low-quality due to incomplete reporting of methods and uncertainty of findings; when the strength of the evidence is low or very low, this means future research may change the results and we cannot be certain about them. Results showed that Doppler ultrasound of the umbilical artery may decrease the number of babies who die, and may lead to fewer caesarean sections and inductions of labour. There was no clear difference in the number of stillbirths, births using forceps or ventouse, or babies with a low Apgar score five minutes after birth. Findings for serious problems in the neonate were not consistent in different studies. In babies with growth restriction, when the decision to deliver was based on late ductus venosus changes or abnormalities on computerised CTG, this appeared to improve long-term (two-year) developmental outcome. Doppler ultrasound in high-risk pregnancies appears to reduce the number of babies who die, and may also lead to fewer obstetric interventions. However, the evidence was of moderate to very low-quality. Further studies of high-quality with long-term follow-up would help us to be more certain." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "***TASK***\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***INPUT***\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***OUTPUT***\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***DOCUMENTATION***\n\n***EXAMPLES***\n\nInput: Three eligible trials were identified. Two trials, including one trial with a much larger sample size than the others combined, were from geographical areas with low population selenium concentrations. Meta-analysis of the pooled data showed a significant reduction in the proportion of infants having one or more episodes of sepsis associated with selenium supplementation [summary RR 0.73 (0.57 to 0.93); RD -0.10 (-0.17 to -0.02); NNT 10 (5.9 to 50)]. Supplementation with selenium was not associated with improved survival, a reduction in neonatal chronic lung disease or retinopathy of prematurity. Supplementing very preterm infants with selenium is associated with benefit in terms of a reduction in one or more episodes of sepsis. Supplementation was not associated with improved survival, a reduction in neonatal chronic lung disease or retinopathy of prematurity. Supplemental doses of selenium for infants on parenteral nutrition higher than those currently recommended may be beneficial. The data are dominated by one large trial from a country with low selenium concentrations and may not be readily translated to other populations.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "The review of trials of selenium supplementation for preterm babies found that it reduces sepsis (blood infection). It has not been shown to reduce other complications or increase survival. No adverse effects were reported. Higher than usual levels of selenium supplementation may be beneficial, but more research is needed as most of the evidence comes from a country where selenium levels were unusually low." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "***TASK***\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***INPUT***\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***OUTPUT***\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***DOCUMENTATION***\n\n***EXAMPLES***\n\nInput: Four trials (1646 women) were included. The method of randomisation was unclear in all four trials and allocation concealment was reported in only one trial. Two trials used blinding of participants and outcomes. Vitamin B6 as oral capsules or lozenges resulted in decreased risk of dental decay in pregnant women (capsules: risk ratio (RR) 0.84; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 0.98; one trial, n = 371, low quality of evidence; lozenges: RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.56 to 0.83; one trial, n = 342, low quality of evidence). A small trial showed reduced mean birthweights with vitamin B6 supplementation (mean difference -0.23 kg; 95% CI -0.42 to -0.04; n = 33; one trial). We did not find any statistically significant differences in the risk of eclampsia (capsules: n = 1242; three trials; lozenges: n = 944; one trial), pre-eclampsia (capsules n = 1197; two trials, low quality of evidence; lozenges: n = 944; one trial, low-quality evidence) or low Apgar scores at one minute (oral pyridoxine: n = 45; one trial), between supplemented and non-supplemented groups. No differences were found in Apgar scores at five minutes, or breastmilk production between controls and women receiving oral (n = 24; one trial) or intramuscular (n = 24; one trial) loading doses of pyridoxine at labour. Overall, the risk of bias was judged as unclear. The quality of the evidence using GRADE was low for both pre-eclampsia and dental decay. The other primary outcomes, preterm birth before 37 weeks and low birthweight, were not reported in the included trials. There were few trials, reporting few clinical outcomes and mostly with unclear trial methodology and inadequate follow-up. There is not enough evidence to detect clinical benefits of vitamin B6 supplementation in pregnancy and/or labour other than one trial suggesting protection against dental decay. Future trials assessing this and other outcomes such as orofacial clefts, cardiovascular malformations, neurological development, preterm birth, pre-eclampsia and adverse events are required.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "This review could not provide evidence from randomised controlled trials that routine supplementation with vitamin B6 during pregnancy is of any benefit, other than one trial suggesting protection against dental decay. It may cause harm if too much is taken, as amounts well above the recommended daily allowance are associated with numbness and difficulty in walking. Vitamin B6 is a water-soluble vitamin which plays vital roles in numerous metabolic processes in the human body and helps with the development of the nervous system. Vitamin B6 is contained in many foods including meat, poultry, fish, vegetables, and bananas. It is thought that B6 may play a role in the prevention of pre-eclampsia, where the mother’s blood pressure is high with large amounts of protein in the urine or other organ dysfunction, and in babies being born too early (preterm birth). Vitamin B6 may be helpful for reducing nausea in pregnancy. This review of four trials (involving 1646 pregnant women) assessed routine B6 supplementation during pregnancy with the aim of reducing the chances of pre-eclampsia and preterm birth. Vitamin B6 as oral capsules or lozenges resulted in a decreased risk of dental decay in pregnant women in one trial. Lozenges had a greater effect, suggesting a local or topical effect of pyridoxine within the oral cavity. We did not find any clear differences in the risk of eclampsia or pre-eclampsia (three trials and two trials, respectively, low quality evidence). The studies did not have enough data to be able to make any other useful assessments. The included trials were conducted between 1960 and 1983 and did not include important newborn outcomes that have only recently been associated with vitamin B6, such as decreases in cardiovascular malformations and orofacial clefts. The trials began at different times during pregnancy, most had high rates of loss to follow-up, and adverse effects of vitamin B6 (pyridoxine) use were not assessed. Further research assessing outcomes such as orofacial clefts, cardiovascular malformations, neurological development, preterm birth, pre-eclampsia and adverse events would be helpful." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "***TASK***\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***INPUT***\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***OUTPUT***\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***DOCUMENTATION***\n\n***EXAMPLES***\n\nInput: For this update to the original review, the search identified 65 potentially relevant articles. Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria (872 participants). Four trials studied the efficacy of electrical stimulation (313 participants), three trials studied exercises (199 participants), and five studies compared or combined some form of physical therapy with acupuncture (360 participants). For most outcomes we were unable to perform meta-analysis because the interventions and outcomes were not comparable. For the primary outcome of incomplete recovery after six months, electrostimulation produced no benefit over placebo (moderate quality evidence from one study with 86 participants). Low quality comparisons of electrostimulation with prednisolone (an active treatment) (149 participants), or the addition of electrostimulation to hot packs, massage and facial exercises (22 participants), reported no significant differences. Similarly a meta-analysis from two studies, one of three months and the other of six months duration (142 participants) found no statistically significant difference in synkinesis, a complication of Bell's palsy, between participants receiving electrostimulation and controls. A single low quality study (56 participants), which reported at three months, found worse functional recovery with electrostimulation (mean difference (MD) 12.00 points (scale of 0 to 100) 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.26 to 22.74). Two trials of facial exercises, both at high risk of bias, found no difference in incomplete recovery at six months when exercises were compared to waiting list controls or conventional therapy. There is evidence from a single small study (34 participants) of moderate quality that exercises are beneficial on measures of facial disability to people with chronic facial palsy when compared with controls (MD 20.40 points (scale of 0 to 100), 95% CI 8.76 to 32.04) and from another single low quality study with 145 people with acute cases treated for three months, in which significantly fewer participants developed facial motor synkinesis after exercise (risk ratio 0.24, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.69). The same study showed statistically significant reduction in time for complete recovery, mainly in more severe cases (47 participants, MD -2.10 weeks, 95% CI -3.15 to -1.05) but this was not a prespecified outcome in this meta analysis. Acupuncture studies did not provide useful data as all were short and at high risk of bias. None of the studies included adverse events as an outcome. There is no high quality evidence to support significant benefit or harm from any physical therapy for idiopathic facial paralysis. There is low quality evidence that tailored facial exercises can help to improve facial function, mainly for people with moderate paralysis and chronic cases. There is low quality evidence that facial exercise reduces sequelae in acute cases. The suggested effects of tailored facial exercises need to be confirmed with good quality randomised controlled trials.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "For this updated review we found a total of 12 studies with 872 participants, most with high risk of bias. Four trials studied the efficacy of electrical stimulation (313 participants), three trials studied exercises (199 participants), and five studies combined some form of physical therapy and compared with acupuncture (360 participants). There is evidence from a single study of moderate quality that exercises are beneficial to people with chronic facial palsy when compared with controls and from another low quality study that it is possible that facial exercises could help to reduce synkinesis (a complication of Bell's palsy), and the time to recover. There is insufficient evidence to decide whether electrical stimulation works, to identify risks of these treatments or to assess whether the addition of acupuncture to facial exercises or other physical therapy could produce improvement. In conclusion, tailored facial exercises can help to improve facial function, mainly for people with moderate paralysis and chronic cases, and early facial exercise may reduce recovery time and long term paralysis in acute cases, but the evidence for this is of poor quality. More trials are needed to assess the effects of facial exercises and any risks." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "***TASK***\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***INPUT***\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***OUTPUT***\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***DOCUMENTATION***\n\n***EXAMPLES***\n\nInput: Eleven completed, randomised trials comparing intravenous glycerol and control were considered. Analysis of death during the scheduled treatment period for acute ischaemic and/or haemorrhagic stroke was possible in 10 trials where 482 glycerol treated patients were compared with 463 control patients. Glycerol was associated with a non-significant reduction in the odds of death within the scheduled treatment period (odds ratio (OR) 0.78, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.58 to 1.06). Among patients with definite or probable ischaemic stroke, glycerol was associated with a significant reduction in the odds of death during the scheduled treatment period (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.97). However, at the end of the scheduled follow-up period, there was no significant difference in the odds of death (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.31). Functional outcome was reported in only two studies but there were non-significantly more patients who had a good outcome at the end of scheduled follow up (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.42). Haemolysis seems to be the only relevant adverse effect of glycerol treatment. This systematic review suggests a favourable effect of glycerol treatment on short term survival in patients with probable or definite ischaemic stroke but the confidence intervals were wide and the magnitude of the treatment effect may be only minimal. Due to the relatively small number of patients, and that the trials were performed in the pre-CT era, the results must be interpreted cautiously. The lack of evidence of benefit in long term survival does not support the routine or selective use of glycerol treatment in patients with acute stroke.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "The review found some evidence that glycerol improves the short term survival after stroke, but there was not enough evidence to decide whether glycerol helps avoid disability after stroke. Adverse effects of glycerol treatment did not happen often, but a small number of treated patients were found to have blood in their urine (this disappeared after the glycerol treatment was stopped). More research is needed." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "***TASK***\nthe task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***INPUT***\nthe input is the abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***OUTPUT***\nthe output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature\n\n***DOCUMENTATION***\n\n***EXAMPLES***\n\nInput: Three trials involving a total of 161 preterm infants were included in this review, but only two trials (131 infants) contributed data for meta-analysis. There was no evidence of a clear effect of exposure to the smell and taste of milk with tube feedings on time taken to reach full sucking feeds (MD -2.57 days, 95% CI -5.15 to 0.02; I2 = 17%; 2 trials, 131 infants; very low-quality evidence). One trial reported no adverse effects. There was no evidence of a clear effect of exposure to the smell and taste of milk on the following outcomes: time taken to reach full enteral feeds (MD -1.57 days, 95% CI -6.25 to 3.11; 1 trial, 51 infants; very low-quality evidence), duration of parenteral nutrition (MD -2.20 days, 95% CI -9.49 to 5.09; 1 trial, 51 infants; very low-quality evidence), incidence of necrotising enterocolitis (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.48; 1 trial, 51 infants; low-quality evidence), and late infection (RR 2.46, 95% CI 0.27 to 22.13; 1 trial, 51 infants; low-quality evidence). There was very low-quality evidence demonstrating that exposure to the smell and taste of milk decreased duration of hospitalisation by almost four days (MD -3.89 days, 95% CI -7.03 to -0.75; I2 = 51%; 2 trials, 131 infants). In two trials, an increased growth velocity was noted in infants exposed to the intervention, but we were unable to combine data to perform meta-analysis. No data were available to assess feed intolerance and rates of exclusive breastfeeding at discharge. Included trials were small and had methodological limitations including lack of randomisation (one trial), lack of blinding, and different inclusion criteria and administration of the interventions. Evidence from two trials suggests that exposure to the smell and taste of milk with tube feedings has no clear effect on time taken to reach full sucking feeds, but it may decrease length of hospitalisation. However, these results are uncertain due to the very low quality of the evidence. There is also limited evidence about the impact on other important clinical outcomes and on safety. Future research should examine the effect of exposure to the smell and taste of milk with tube feedings on clinical outcomes during hospitalisation, such as attainment of full enteral and sucking feeds, safety, feed tolerance, incidence of infection, and infant growth. Additionally, future research should be sufficiently powered to evaluate the effect of the intervention in infants of different gestational ages, on each sex separately, and on the optimal frequency and duration of exposure.\nOutput:\n" }, { "from": "agent", "value": "In a search up to 1 June 2018, we identified three completed studies involving 161 preterm infants admitted to a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) at a tertiary hospital. One study involved 51 preterm infants, and each infant had an equal chance of being chosen to receive either treatment (a randomised controlled trial). One study involved 80 preterm infants who were sequentially assigned to control and treatment groups (a quasi-randomised trial). One study was a prospective randomised trial involving 30 infants, but the way it was reported meant there was not enough information for us to include in our analyses. We found that exposure to the smell and taste of milk with orogastric or nasogastric tube feedings had no clear effect on the time to reach full sucking feeds. One study reported no adverse effects. Exposure to the smell and taste of milk also had no clear effect on time to reach full tube feeding, feed tolerance, incidence of late infection and severe intestinal infection, duration of intravenous nutrition, and growth. Very low-quality evidence from two studies suggested that exposure to the smell and taste of milk decreased the length of hospital stay by almost four days compared to no exposure to the smell and taste of milk. However, the included studies were small and had several limitations in terms of how they were done. Exposure to the smell and taste of milk with orogastric or nasogastric tube feedings may decrease length of hospitalisation for preterm infants. However, the effect of this treatment to accelerate feeding in preterm infants is uncertain due to limited and very low-quality evidence. Future research needs to explore the effect of exposure to the smell and taste of milk with tube feedings on important clinical outcomes, such as time to full sucking feeds, adverse effects, time to reach full tube feedings, feed tolerance, incidence of infection, and growth." } ]