id
stringlengths 8
8
| prompt
listlengths 1
1
| completion
listlengths 1
1
| Target
stringlengths 56
2.23k
|
|---|---|---|---|
CD007697
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "You are an expert medical assistant for biomedical document abstractive summarization. Your task is to generate the **Author Conclusions:** section from Cochrane systematic reviews, given a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) title and its abstract.\n\nThe RCT title will be provided in the **RCT Title:** section, and the abstract will be provided in the **Abstract:** section. You will generate the **Author Conclusions:** section based on the information provided in the abstract, focusing on the implications for practice and research and following Cochrane guidelines.\n\nCochrane review conclusions are structured into implications for practice and implications for research, and must clearly reflect the certainty of evidence (e.g., using GRADE levels), the direction and magnitude of effects, and any limitations such as study heterogeneity or bias. They should be precise and actionable, summarizing whether an intervention likely benefits or harms patients and how confident we are in this judgment. Any uncertainty or evidence gaps should be plainly stated, with clear recommendations for future trials when important questions remain.\n\nUse coherent scientific language, and be as exact and accurate as possible in your conclusions. Avoid unnecessary repetition.\n\n**RCT Title:** Aggressive surgical effort and improved survival in advanced-stage ovarian cancer.\n\n**Abstract:** Residual disease after initial surgery for ovarian cancer is the strongest prognostic factor for survival. However, the extent of surgical resection required to achieve optimal cytoreduction is controversial. Our goal was to estimate the effect of aggressive surgical resection on ovarian cancer patient survival.\n A retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage IIIC ovarian cancer undergoing primary surgery was conducted between January 1, 1994, and December 31, 1998. The main outcome measures were residual disease after cytoreduction, frequency of radical surgical resection, and 5-year disease-specific survival.\n The study comprised 194 patients, including 144 with carcinomatosis. The mean patient age and follow-up time were 64.4 and 3.5 years, respectively. After surgery, 131 (67.5%) of the 194 patients had less than 1 cm of residual disease (definition of optimal cytoreduction). Considering all patients, residual disease was the only independent predictor of survival; the need to perform radical procedures to achieve optimal cytoreduction was not associated with a decrease in survival. For the subgroup of patients with carcinomatosis, residual disease and the performance of radical surgical procedures were the only independent predictors. Disease-specific survival was markedly improved for patients with carcinomatosis operated on by surgeons who most frequently used radical procedures compared with those least likely to use radical procedures (44% versus 17%, P < .001).\n Overall, residual disease was the only independent predictor of survival. Minimizing residual disease through aggressive surgical resection was beneficial, especially in patients with carcinomatosis.\n II-2.\n\nPlease generate a scientifically plausible Author Conclusion section for a review of this RCT, following Cochrane guidelines.\n"
}
] |
[
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "**Author Conclusions:** We found only low quality evidence comparing ultra-radical and standard surgery in women with advanced ovarian cancer and carcinomatosis. The evidence suggested that ultra-radical surgery may result in better survival. It was unclear whether there were any differences in progression-free survival, QoL and morbidity between the two groups. The cost-effectiveness of this intervention has not been investigated. We are, therefore, unable to reach definite conclusions about the relative benefits and adverse effects of the two types of surgery.\nIn order to determine the role of ultra-radical surgery in the management of advanced stage ovarian cancer, a sufficiently powered randomised controlled trial comparing ultra-radical and standard surgery or well-designed non-randomised studies would be required.\n"
}
] |
We found only low quality evidence comparing ultra-radical and standard surgery in women with advanced ovarian cancer and carcinomatosis. The evidence suggested that ultra-radical surgery may result in better survival. It was unclear whether there were any differences in progression-free survival, QoL and morbidity between the two groups. The cost-effectiveness of this intervention has not been investigated. We are, therefore, unable to reach definite conclusions about the relative benefits and adverse effects of the two types of surgery.
In order to determine the role of ultra-radical surgery in the management of advanced stage ovarian cancer, a sufficiently powered randomised controlled trial comparing ultra-radical and standard surgery or well-designed non-randomised studies would be required.
|
CD000174
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "You are an expert medical assistant for biomedical document abstractive summarization. Your task is to generate the **Author Conclusions:** section from Cochrane systematic reviews, given a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) title and its abstract.\n\nThe RCT title will be provided in the **RCT Title:** section, and the abstract will be provided in the **Abstract:** section. You will generate the **Author Conclusions:** section based on the information provided in the abstract, focusing on the implications for practice and research and following Cochrane guidelines.\n\nCochrane review conclusions are structured into implications for practice and implications for research, and must clearly reflect the certainty of evidence (e.g., using GRADE levels), the direction and magnitude of effects, and any limitations such as study heterogeneity or bias. They should be precise and actionable, summarizing whether an intervention likely benefits or harms patients and how confident we are in this judgment. Any uncertainty or evidence gaps should be plainly stated, with clear recommendations for future trials when important questions remain.\n\nUse coherent scientific language, and be as exact and accurate as possible in your conclusions. Avoid unnecessary repetition.\n\n**RCT Title:** Prophylactic indomethacin therapy in the first twenty-four hours of life for the prevention of patent ductus arteriosus in preterm infants treated prophylactically with surfactant in the delivery room.\n\n**Abstract:** To determine whether a course of low-dose indomethacin therapy, when initiated within 24 hours of birth, would decrease ductal shunting in premature infants who received prophylactic surfactant in the delivery room.\n Ninety infants, with birth weights of 600 to 1250 gm, were entered into a prospective, randomized, controlled trial to receive either indomethacin, 0.1 mg/kg per dose, or placebo less than 24 hours and again every 24 hours for six doses. Echocardiography was performed on day 1 before treatment and on day 7, 24 hours after treatment. A hemodynamically significant patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) was confirmed with an out-of-study echocardiogram, and the nonresponders were treated with standard indomethacin or ligation.\n Forty-three infants received indomethacin (birth weight, 915 +/- 209 gm; gestational age, 26.4 +/- 1.6 weeks; 25 boys), and 47 received placebo (birth weight, 879 +/- 202 gm; gestational age, 26.4 +/- 1.8 weeks; 22 boys) (P = not significant). Of 90 infants, 77 (86%) had a PDA by echocardiogram on the first day of life before study treatment; 84% of these PDAs were moderate or large in size in the indomethacin-treated group compared with 93% in the placebo group. Nine of forty indomethacin-treated infants (21%) were study-dose nonresponders compared with 22 (47%) of 47 placebo-treated infants (p < 0.018). There were no significant differences between both groups in any of the long-term outcome variables, including intraventricular hemorrhage, duration of oxygen therapy, endotracheal intubation, duration of stay in neonatal intensive care unit, time to regain birth weight or reach full caloric intake, incidence of bronchopulmonary dysplasia, and survival. No significant differences were noted in the incidence of oliguria, elevated plasma creatinine concentration, thrombocytopenia, pulmonary hemorrhage, or necrotizing enterocolitis.\n The prophylactic use of low doses of indomethacin, when initiated in the first 24 hours of life in low birth weight infants who receive prophylactic surfactant in the delivery room, decreases the incidence of left-to-right shunting at the level of the ductus arteriosus.\n\nPlease generate a scientifically plausible Author Conclusion section for a review of this RCT, following Cochrane guidelines.\n"
}
] |
[
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "**Author Conclusions:** Prophylactic indomethacin has short-term benefits for preterm infants including a reduction in the incidence of symptomatic PDA, PDA surgical ligation, and severe intraventricular haemorrhage. However, there is no evidence of effect on mortality or neurodevelopment.\n"
}
] |
Prophylactic indomethacin has short-term benefits for preterm infants including a reduction in the incidence of symptomatic PDA, PDA surgical ligation, and severe intraventricular haemorrhage. However, there is no evidence of effect on mortality or neurodevelopment.
|
CD000174
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "You are an expert medical assistant for biomedical document abstractive summarization. Your task is to generate the **Author Conclusions:** section from Cochrane systematic reviews, given a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) title and its abstract.\n\nThe RCT title will be provided in the **RCT Title:** section, and the abstract will be provided in the **Abstract:** section. You will generate the **Author Conclusions:** section based on the information provided in the abstract, focusing on the implications for practice and research and following Cochrane guidelines.\n\nCochrane review conclusions are structured into implications for practice and implications for research, and must clearly reflect the certainty of evidence (e.g., using GRADE levels), the direction and magnitude of effects, and any limitations such as study heterogeneity or bias. They should be precise and actionable, summarizing whether an intervention likely benefits or harms patients and how confident we are in this judgment. Any uncertainty or evidence gaps should be plainly stated, with clear recommendations for future trials when important questions remain.\n\nUse coherent scientific language, and be as exact and accurate as possible in your conclusions. Avoid unnecessary repetition.\n\n**RCT Title:** Indomethacin reduces the risks of severe intraventricular hemorrhage.\n\n**Abstract:** A prospective, random selection, double-blind clinical trial was carried out to determine the efficacy of indomethacin in preventing periventricular-intraventricular hemorrhage (PV-IVH). Babies who were born in our institution, had birth weights less than or equal to 1500 gm, and had no PV-IVH or grade 1 PV-IVH were given either placebo (n = 70) or indomethacin (n = 71), 0.2 mg/kg intravenously at 6 hours of age and 0.1 mg/kg at 18 and 30 hours. Two major outcomes were determined: the development of grades 2 to 4 PV-IVH and the development of severe PV-IVH (i.e., hemorrhages with blood filling greater than 50% of the ventricles and in some cases with associated parenchymal echodensities). Grades 2 to 4 PV-IVH occurred in 16 (23%) of the indomethacin group and 27 (39%) of the placebo group (p less than 0.03). The incidence of severe PV-IVH was 3% in the indomethacin-treated babies and 14% in the control group (p less than 0.02). The influence of other perinatal factors on the incidence of grades 2 to 4 or severe PV-IVH was determined by stepwise logistic regression. Placebo use, early grade 1 PV-IVH, lower birth weight, and higher fraction of inspired oxygen at 6 hours of life were associated with higher estimated odds of the development of grades 2 to 4 PV-IVH. Placebo use, male gender, lower 5-minute Apgar score, and a large base deficit were predictive of severe PV-IVH. Estimated odds ratios of severe PV-IVH with placebo use and male gender were 11.25:1 and 9:1, respectively. Thus indomethacin prophylaxis reduced the relative risk of grades 2 to 4 PV-IVH and severe PV-IVH, but other perinatal variables contributed significantly to the overall risk of PV-IVH.\n\nPlease generate a scientifically plausible Author Conclusion section for a review of this RCT, following Cochrane guidelines.\n"
}
] |
[
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "**Author Conclusions:** Prophylactic indomethacin has short-term benefits for preterm infants including a reduction in the incidence of symptomatic PDA, PDA surgical ligation, and severe intraventricular haemorrhage. However, there is no evidence of effect on mortality or neurodevelopment.\n"
}
] |
Prophylactic indomethacin has short-term benefits for preterm infants including a reduction in the incidence of symptomatic PDA, PDA surgical ligation, and severe intraventricular haemorrhage. However, there is no evidence of effect on mortality or neurodevelopment.
|
CD000174
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "You are an expert medical assistant for biomedical document abstractive summarization. Your task is to generate the **Author Conclusions:** section from Cochrane systematic reviews, given a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) title and its abstract.\n\nThe RCT title will be provided in the **RCT Title:** section, and the abstract will be provided in the **Abstract:** section. You will generate the **Author Conclusions:** section based on the information provided in the abstract, focusing on the implications for practice and research and following Cochrane guidelines.\n\nCochrane review conclusions are structured into implications for practice and implications for research, and must clearly reflect the certainty of evidence (e.g., using GRADE levels), the direction and magnitude of effects, and any limitations such as study heterogeneity or bias. They should be precise and actionable, summarizing whether an intervention likely benefits or harms patients and how confident we are in this judgment. Any uncertainty or evidence gaps should be plainly stated, with clear recommendations for future trials when important questions remain.\n\nUse coherent scientific language, and be as exact and accurate as possible in your conclusions. Avoid unnecessary repetition.\n\n**RCT Title:** Administration of indomethacin for the prevention of periventricular-intraventricular hemorrhage in high-risk neonates.\n\n**Abstract:** One hundred twenty-two preterm infants were enrolled in a placebo-controlled, double-blind trial using intravenous indomethacin for the prevention of periventricular-intraventricular hemorrhage (PVH-IVH). Before random assignment, data on the infants were stratified according to low-weight (500 to 999 g) or high-weight (1000 to 1500 g) subgroups. Cranial sonography was used to document the absence of PVH-IVH before enrollment and the occurrence of PVH-IVH during the 7-day protocol. Indomethacin, 0.1 mg/kg, or placebo was administered before 12 hours of age and at 24, 48, and 72 hours of age. Five patients receiving indomethacin and six receiving placebo were withdrawn before completion of the study. In the remaining 111 patients, the indomethacin and placebo groups were comparable with respect to gestational ages, maternal complications, Apgar scores, ventilatory requirements, complications of prematurity, and mortality rate. PVH-IVH developed in six of 56 infants who received indomethacin and 11 of 55 infants who received placebo (P = 0.174). Analysis of the individual strata showed that the indomethacin-treated infants in the low-weight subgroup sustained a higher mortality rate (11/17 vs 3/16; P = 0.008) without a reduction in the incidence of PVH-IVH. Infants in the indomethacin-treated high-weight subgroup demonstrated a significantly lower incidence of PVH-IVH (2/39 vs 8/39; P = 0.04), but the frequency of high-grade hemorrhages was comparable for both indomethacin- and placebo-treated groups. In summary, the prophylactic administration of intravenous indomethacin for the prevention of PVH-IVH cannot be recommended for infants less than 1000 g. In preterm infants between 1000 and 1500 g birth weight, indomethacin significantly reduced the incidence of PVH-IVH.\n\nPlease generate a scientifically plausible Author Conclusion section for a review of this RCT, following Cochrane guidelines.\n"
}
] |
[
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "**Author Conclusions:** Prophylactic indomethacin has short-term benefits for preterm infants including a reduction in the incidence of symptomatic PDA, PDA surgical ligation, and severe intraventricular haemorrhage. However, there is no evidence of effect on mortality or neurodevelopment.\n"
}
] |
Prophylactic indomethacin has short-term benefits for preterm infants including a reduction in the incidence of symptomatic PDA, PDA surgical ligation, and severe intraventricular haemorrhage. However, there is no evidence of effect on mortality or neurodevelopment.
|
CD000174
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "You are an expert medical assistant for biomedical document abstractive summarization. Your task is to generate the **Author Conclusions:** section from Cochrane systematic reviews, given a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) title and its abstract.\n\nThe RCT title will be provided in the **RCT Title:** section, and the abstract will be provided in the **Abstract:** section. You will generate the **Author Conclusions:** section based on the information provided in the abstract, focusing on the implications for practice and research and following Cochrane guidelines.\n\nCochrane review conclusions are structured into implications for practice and implications for research, and must clearly reflect the certainty of evidence (e.g., using GRADE levels), the direction and magnitude of effects, and any limitations such as study heterogeneity or bias. They should be precise and actionable, summarizing whether an intervention likely benefits or harms patients and how confident we are in this judgment. Any uncertainty or evidence gaps should be plainly stated, with clear recommendations for future trials when important questions remain.\n\nUse coherent scientific language, and be as exact and accurate as possible in your conclusions. Avoid unnecessary repetition.\n\n**RCT Title:** Early intravenous indomethacin prolongs respiratory support in very low birth weight infants.\n\n**Abstract:** Infants weighing 1500 g at birth requiring either intermittent positive pressure ventilation or continuous positive airway pressure by 12 hours of age were entered in a randomized double blind controlled trial to test the efficacy of early intravenous indomethacin therapy in preventing chronic pulmonary disease of prematurity. Of the 30 newborns enrolled, 15 were treated with indomethacin and 15 were treated with placebo at 12, 24 and 36 hours of age. The groups were similar for birth weight, gestational age, sex, hyaline membrane disease and intracranial hemorrhage. Infants in the placebo group were successfully weaned from intermittent positive pressure ventilation at an earlier age than infants in the indomethacin group (p less than 0.05). Furthermore, chronic pulmonary disease of prematurity was similar in the two groups despite a reduction in the incidence of patent ductus arteriosus in the indomethacin group.\n\nPlease generate a scientifically plausible Author Conclusion section for a review of this RCT, following Cochrane guidelines.\n"
}
] |
[
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "**Author Conclusions:** Prophylactic indomethacin has short-term benefits for preterm infants including a reduction in the incidence of symptomatic PDA, PDA surgical ligation, and severe intraventricular haemorrhage. However, there is no evidence of effect on mortality or neurodevelopment.\n"
}
] |
Prophylactic indomethacin has short-term benefits for preterm infants including a reduction in the incidence of symptomatic PDA, PDA surgical ligation, and severe intraventricular haemorrhage. However, there is no evidence of effect on mortality or neurodevelopment.
|
CD000174
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "You are an expert medical assistant for biomedical document abstractive summarization. Your task is to generate the **Author Conclusions:** section from Cochrane systematic reviews, given a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) title and its abstract.\n\nThe RCT title will be provided in the **RCT Title:** section, and the abstract will be provided in the **Abstract:** section. You will generate the **Author Conclusions:** section based on the information provided in the abstract, focusing on the implications for practice and research and following Cochrane guidelines.\n\nCochrane review conclusions are structured into implications for practice and implications for research, and must clearly reflect the certainty of evidence (e.g., using GRADE levels), the direction and magnitude of effects, and any limitations such as study heterogeneity or bias. They should be precise and actionable, summarizing whether an intervention likely benefits or harms patients and how confident we are in this judgment. Any uncertainty or evidence gaps should be plainly stated, with clear recommendations for future trials when important questions remain.\n\nUse coherent scientific language, and be as exact and accurate as possible in your conclusions. Avoid unnecessary repetition.\n\n**RCT Title:** Low-dose indomethacin therapy and extension of intraventricular hemorrhage: a multicenter randomized trial.\n\n**Abstract:** We enrolled 61 neonates of 600 to 1250 gm birth weight with evidence of low-grade intraventricular hemorrhage at 6 to 11 hours of age in a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled trial to test the hypothesis that indomethacin (0.1 mg/kg given intravenously at 6 to 12 postnatal hours and every 24 hours for two more doses) would prevent extension of intraventricular hemorrhage. Twenty-seven infants were assigned to receive indomethacin; 34 infants received saline placebo. There were no significant differences between the two groups in birth weight, gestational age, sex, Apgar scores, percentage of infants treated with surfactant, or distribution of hemorrhages at the time of the first cranial sonogram (echo-encephalogram). Within the first 5 days, 9 of 27 indomethacin-treated and 12 of 34 saline solution-treated infants had extension of their initial intraventricular hemorrhage (p = 1.00). Four indomethacin-treated and three saline solution-treated infants had parenchymal extension of the hemorrhage. Indomethacin was associated with closure of a patent ductus arteriosus by the fifth day of life (p = 0.003). There were no differences in adverse events attributed to indomethacin. We conclude that in very low birth weight infants with low grade intraventricular hemorrhage within the first 6 postnatal hours, prophylactic indomethacin therapy promotes closure of the patent ductus arteriosus and is not associated with adverse events, but does not affect the cascade of events leading to parenchymal involvement of intracranial hemorrhage.\n\nPlease generate a scientifically plausible Author Conclusion section for a review of this RCT, following Cochrane guidelines.\n"
}
] |
[
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "**Author Conclusions:** Prophylactic indomethacin has short-term benefits for preterm infants including a reduction in the incidence of symptomatic PDA, PDA surgical ligation, and severe intraventricular haemorrhage. However, there is no evidence of effect on mortality or neurodevelopment.\n"
}
] |
Prophylactic indomethacin has short-term benefits for preterm infants including a reduction in the incidence of symptomatic PDA, PDA surgical ligation, and severe intraventricular haemorrhage. However, there is no evidence of effect on mortality or neurodevelopment.
|
CD000174
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "You are an expert medical assistant for biomedical document abstractive summarization. Your task is to generate the **Author Conclusions:** section from Cochrane systematic reviews, given a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) title and its abstract.\n\nThe RCT title will be provided in the **RCT Title:** section, and the abstract will be provided in the **Abstract:** section. You will generate the **Author Conclusions:** section based on the information provided in the abstract, focusing on the implications for practice and research and following Cochrane guidelines.\n\nCochrane review conclusions are structured into implications for practice and implications for research, and must clearly reflect the certainty of evidence (e.g., using GRADE levels), the direction and magnitude of effects, and any limitations such as study heterogeneity or bias. They should be precise and actionable, summarizing whether an intervention likely benefits or harms patients and how confident we are in this judgment. Any uncertainty or evidence gaps should be plainly stated, with clear recommendations for future trials when important questions remain.\n\nUse coherent scientific language, and be as exact and accurate as possible in your conclusions. Avoid unnecessary repetition.\n\n**RCT Title:** Long-term effects of indomethacin prophylaxis in extremely-low-birth-weight infants.\n\n**Abstract:** The prophylactic administration of indomethacin reduces the frequency of patent ductus arteriosus and severe intraventricular hemorrhage in very-low-birth-weight infants (those with birth weights below 1500 g). Whether prophylaxis with indomethacin confers any long-term benefits that outweigh the risks of drug-induced reductions in renal, intestinal, and cerebral blood flow is not known.\n Soon after they were born, we randomly assigned 1202 infants with birth weights of 500 to 999 g (extremely low birth weight) to receive either indomethacin (0.1 mg per kilogram of body weight) or placebo intravenously once daily for three days. The primary outcome was a composite of death, cerebral palsy, cognitive delay, deafness, and blindness at a corrected age of 18 months. Secondary long-term outcomes were hydrocephalus necessitating the placement of a shunt, seizure disorder, and microcephaly within the same time frame. Secondary short-term outcomes were patent ductus arteriosus, pulmonary hemorrhage, chronic lung disease, ultrasonographic evidence of intracranial abnormalities, necrotizing enterocolitis, and retinopathy.\n Of the 574 infants with data on the primary outcome who were assigned to prophylaxis with indomethacin, 271 (47 percent) died or survived with impairments, as compared with 261 of the 569 infants (46 percent) assigned to placebo (odds ratio, 1.1; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.8 to 1.4; P=0.61). Indomethacin reduced the incidence of patent ductus arteriosus (24 percent vs. 50 percent in the placebo group; odds ratio, 0.3; P<0.001) and of severe periventricular and intraventricular hemorrhage (9 percent vs. 13 percent in the placebo group; odds ratio, 0.6; P=0.02). No other outcomes were altered by the prophylactic administration of indomethacin.\n In extremely-low-birth-weight infants, prophylaxis with indomethacin does not improve the rate of survival without neurosensory impairment at 18 months, despite the fact that it reduces the frequency of patent ductus arteriosus and severe periventricular and intraventricular hemorrhage.\n\nPlease generate a scientifically plausible Author Conclusion section for a review of this RCT, following Cochrane guidelines.\n"
}
] |
[
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "**Author Conclusions:** Prophylactic indomethacin has short-term benefits for preterm infants including a reduction in the incidence of symptomatic PDA, PDA surgical ligation, and severe intraventricular haemorrhage. However, there is no evidence of effect on mortality or neurodevelopment.\n"
}
] |
Prophylactic indomethacin has short-term benefits for preterm infants including a reduction in the incidence of symptomatic PDA, PDA surgical ligation, and severe intraventricular haemorrhage. However, there is no evidence of effect on mortality or neurodevelopment.
|
CD000174
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "You are an expert medical assistant for biomedical document abstractive summarization. Your task is to generate the **Author Conclusions:** section from Cochrane systematic reviews, given a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) title and its abstract.\n\nThe RCT title will be provided in the **RCT Title:** section, and the abstract will be provided in the **Abstract:** section. You will generate the **Author Conclusions:** section based on the information provided in the abstract, focusing on the implications for practice and research and following Cochrane guidelines.\n\nCochrane review conclusions are structured into implications for practice and implications for research, and must clearly reflect the certainty of evidence (e.g., using GRADE levels), the direction and magnitude of effects, and any limitations such as study heterogeneity or bias. They should be precise and actionable, summarizing whether an intervention likely benefits or harms patients and how confident we are in this judgment. Any uncertainty or evidence gaps should be plainly stated, with clear recommendations for future trials when important questions remain.\n\nUse coherent scientific language, and be as exact and accurate as possible in your conclusions. Avoid unnecessary repetition.\n\n**RCT Title:** Randomized low-dose indomethacin trial for prevention of intraventricular hemorrhage in very low birth weight neonates.\n\n**Abstract:** We admitted 36 preterm neonates (600 to 1250 gm birth weight) with normal 6-hour echoencephalograms to a randomized, placebo-controlled prospective trial to determine whether a low dose of indomethacin would prevent germinal matrix or intraventricular hemorrhage and permit adequate urinary output. Between the sixth and tenth postnatal hours, indomethacin (0.1 mg/kg) or placebo was administered intravenously every 24 hours for a total of three doses. Cardiac ultrasound studies to assess the status of the ductus arteriosus were performed at 6 postnatal hours and on day 5. Urinary output, serum electrolytes, serum indomethacin levels, and renal and clotting functions were monitored. No differences in birth weight, gestational age, or Apgar scores were noted between the two groups of infants. Two indomethacin-treated infants and three infants given placebo had significant urinary output difficulties, requiring that the study medication be withheld. Of 19 infants given indomethacin, two had germinal matrix or intraventricular hemorrhage, in comparison with 8 of 17 infants given saline solution (p = 0.02). Of the infants who had a left-to-right patent ductus arteriosus shunt before treatment, 64% of the indomethacin-treated and 33% of the saline solution-treated infants no longer had a patent ductus arteriosus on day 5. Ductal status appeared unrelated to the development of germinal matrix or intraventricular hemorrhage.\n\nPlease generate a scientifically plausible Author Conclusion section for a review of this RCT, following Cochrane guidelines.\n"
}
] |
[
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "**Author Conclusions:** Prophylactic indomethacin has short-term benefits for preterm infants including a reduction in the incidence of symptomatic PDA, PDA surgical ligation, and severe intraventricular haemorrhage. However, there is no evidence of effect on mortality or neurodevelopment.\n"
}
] |
Prophylactic indomethacin has short-term benefits for preterm infants including a reduction in the incidence of symptomatic PDA, PDA surgical ligation, and severe intraventricular haemorrhage. However, there is no evidence of effect on mortality or neurodevelopment.
|
CD000174
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "You are an expert medical assistant for biomedical document abstractive summarization. Your task is to generate the **Author Conclusions:** section from Cochrane systematic reviews, given a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) title and its abstract.\n\nThe RCT title will be provided in the **RCT Title:** section, and the abstract will be provided in the **Abstract:** section. You will generate the **Author Conclusions:** section based on the information provided in the abstract, focusing on the implications for practice and research and following Cochrane guidelines.\n\nCochrane review conclusions are structured into implications for practice and implications for research, and must clearly reflect the certainty of evidence (e.g., using GRADE levels), the direction and magnitude of effects, and any limitations such as study heterogeneity or bias. They should be precise and actionable, summarizing whether an intervention likely benefits or harms patients and how confident we are in this judgment. Any uncertainty or evidence gaps should be plainly stated, with clear recommendations for future trials when important questions remain.\n\nUse coherent scientific language, and be as exact and accurate as possible in your conclusions. Avoid unnecessary repetition.\n\n**RCT Title:** Prophylactic indomethacin for prevention of intraventricular hemorrhage in premature infants.\n\n**Abstract:** The impact of early prophylactic use of intravenous indomethacin on the incidence and severity of periventricular-intraventricular hemorrhage and patent ductus arteriosus in 199 oxygen-requiring premature infants (less than or equal to 1300 g birth weight) was prospectively investigated. The trial was controlled, the infants were randomized, and the investigators were unaware of the group assignments. Patients with minimal (grade I) or no periventricular-intraventricular hemorrhage determined by prestudy echoencephalography were randomized within two birth weight subgroups (500 to 899 and 900 to 1300 g) to receive either prophylactic indomethacin (n = 99) or an equal volume of saline-vehicle placebo (n = 100). The first dose (0.2 mg/kg) was given within 12 hours of delivery and two subsequent doses (0.1 mg/kg) were administered at 12 hourly intervals. Prophylactic indomethacin significantly reduced the incidence of grades II to IV periventricular-intraventricular hemorrhage. Intraventricular hemorrhage was half as common in infants given prophylactic indomethacin as in control infants (23% v 46%, P less than .002). The reduction was manifested in both birth weight subgroups. Results of this study also confirmed a lower incidence of clinically significant patent ductus arteriosus in infants who received prophylactic indomethacin in contrast to those who received placebo (11% v 42%, P less than .001). No significant differences were found between treatment and control groups in the duration of oxygen therapy, mechanical ventilation, or hospitalization or in the incidence of pneumothorax, chronic lung disease, sepsis, necrotizing enterocolitis, retinopathy of prematurity, or death. Early prophylactic indomethacin initiated within 12 hours of delivery is effective in reducing the incidence of intraventricular hemorrhage as well as clinically significant patent ductus arteriosus in very low birth weight premature infants.\n\nPlease generate a scientifically plausible Author Conclusion section for a review of this RCT, following Cochrane guidelines.\n"
}
] |
[
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "**Author Conclusions:** Prophylactic indomethacin has short-term benefits for preterm infants including a reduction in the incidence of symptomatic PDA, PDA surgical ligation, and severe intraventricular haemorrhage. However, there is no evidence of effect on mortality or neurodevelopment.\n"
}
] |
Prophylactic indomethacin has short-term benefits for preterm infants including a reduction in the incidence of symptomatic PDA, PDA surgical ligation, and severe intraventricular haemorrhage. However, there is no evidence of effect on mortality or neurodevelopment.
|
CD000174
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "You are an expert medical assistant for biomedical document abstractive summarization. Your task is to generate the **Author Conclusions:** section from Cochrane systematic reviews, given a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) title and its abstract.\n\nThe RCT title will be provided in the **RCT Title:** section, and the abstract will be provided in the **Abstract:** section. You will generate the **Author Conclusions:** section based on the information provided in the abstract, focusing on the implications for practice and research and following Cochrane guidelines.\n\nCochrane review conclusions are structured into implications for practice and implications for research, and must clearly reflect the certainty of evidence (e.g., using GRADE levels), the direction and magnitude of effects, and any limitations such as study heterogeneity or bias. They should be precise and actionable, summarizing whether an intervention likely benefits or harms patients and how confident we are in this judgment. Any uncertainty or evidence gaps should be plainly stated, with clear recommendations for future trials when important questions remain.\n\nUse coherent scientific language, and be as exact and accurate as possible in your conclusions. Avoid unnecessary repetition.\n\n**RCT Title:** Effects of early indomethacin administration on oxygenation and surfactant requirement in low birth weight infants.\n\n**Abstract:** A previous study found that early intravenous indomethacin administration prolonged respiratory support in very low birth weight infants. We have, therefore, designed a randomized, double blind controlled study to evaluate the oxygenation, and surfactant requirements in preterm low birth weight infants receiving early indomethacin administration. Premature neonates who received surfactant therapy and on mechanical ventilation were prospectively randomized to receive either placebo or indomethacin (0.2 mg/kg intravenously at 12 postnatal hours and every 24 h for two more doses). Oxygenation was assessed by FiO2 required and arterial/alveolar oxygen (a/A O2) ratio during the first 48 h of life. The doses of surfactant were compared between the two groups. Twenty-seven infants (n = 14 of early indomethacin and n = 13 of placebo group) fulfilled inclusion criteria. At admission to the study, there were no differences in the birth weight, gestational age, sex, Apgar scores, a/A O2 ratio, and FiO2. The control group exhibited a significant improvement in oxygenation (FiO2 requirement and a/A O2 compared with the early indomethacin group at 24 (P = 0.026 and 0.02, respectively) and 48 h of life (P = 0.037 and 0.026, respectively). The requirement of surfactant was significantly larger in the early indomethacin group (P = 0.029). Early indomethacin administration increases oxygen and surfactant requirement.\n\nPlease generate a scientifically plausible Author Conclusion section for a review of this RCT, following Cochrane guidelines.\n"
}
] |
[
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "**Author Conclusions:** Prophylactic indomethacin has short-term benefits for preterm infants including a reduction in the incidence of symptomatic PDA, PDA surgical ligation, and severe intraventricular haemorrhage. However, there is no evidence of effect on mortality or neurodevelopment.\n"
}
] |
Prophylactic indomethacin has short-term benefits for preterm infants including a reduction in the incidence of symptomatic PDA, PDA surgical ligation, and severe intraventricular haemorrhage. However, there is no evidence of effect on mortality or neurodevelopment.
|
CD000174
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "You are an expert medical assistant for biomedical document abstractive summarization. Your task is to generate the **Author Conclusions:** section from Cochrane systematic reviews, given a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) title and its abstract.\n\nThe RCT title will be provided in the **RCT Title:** section, and the abstract will be provided in the **Abstract:** section. You will generate the **Author Conclusions:** section based on the information provided in the abstract, focusing on the implications for practice and research and following Cochrane guidelines.\n\nCochrane review conclusions are structured into implications for practice and implications for research, and must clearly reflect the certainty of evidence (e.g., using GRADE levels), the direction and magnitude of effects, and any limitations such as study heterogeneity or bias. They should be precise and actionable, summarizing whether an intervention likely benefits or harms patients and how confident we are in this judgment. Any uncertainty or evidence gaps should be plainly stated, with clear recommendations for future trials when important questions remain.\n\nUse coherent scientific language, and be as exact and accurate as possible in your conclusions. Avoid unnecessary repetition.\n\n**RCT Title:** Prevention of symptomatic patent ductus arteriosus with a single dose of indomethacin.\n\n**Abstract:** To determine the efficacy of indomethacin to prevent the occurrence of symptomatic patent ductus arteriosus (PDA), a randomized clinical trial was conducted involving 32 preterm infants weighing 750 to 1500 g at birth who had hyaline membrane disease. By random assignment, 15 infants were given a single dose of indomethacin, 0.2 mg/kg intravenously, 24 hours after birth. Seventeen infants composed a control group for which indomethacin was reserved as treatment for symptomatic PDA. Birth weight, gestational age, male/female ratio, black/white ratio, and severity of disease were similar for both groups. Only one of the 14 survivors who received prophylactic indomethacin had symptomatic PDA, compared with nine of the 16 survivors in the control group (P = 0.007). There was no difference between the groups in development of bronchopulmonary dysplasia, duration of time endotracheal intubation, was required, duration in oxygen, duration to reach full feedings and regain birth weight, and duration of hospital stay. There was no difference between the two groups in incidence of intraventricular hemorrhage, and none developed necrotizing enterocolitis. These results indicate that the use of prophylactic indomethacin is beneficial in prevention of symptomatic PDA; the lack of differences in pulmonary sequelae or other complications may have been related to a population sample size not large enough to impart sufficient statistical power.\n\nPlease generate a scientifically plausible Author Conclusion section for a review of this RCT, following Cochrane guidelines.\n"
}
] |
[
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "**Author Conclusions:** Prophylactic indomethacin has short-term benefits for preterm infants including a reduction in the incidence of symptomatic PDA, PDA surgical ligation, and severe intraventricular haemorrhage. However, there is no evidence of effect on mortality or neurodevelopment.\n"
}
] |
Prophylactic indomethacin has short-term benefits for preterm infants including a reduction in the incidence of symptomatic PDA, PDA surgical ligation, and severe intraventricular haemorrhage. However, there is no evidence of effect on mortality or neurodevelopment.
|
CD000174
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "You are an expert medical assistant for biomedical document abstractive summarization. Your task is to generate the **Author Conclusions:** section from Cochrane systematic reviews, given a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) title and its abstract.\n\nThe RCT title will be provided in the **RCT Title:** section, and the abstract will be provided in the **Abstract:** section. You will generate the **Author Conclusions:** section based on the information provided in the abstract, focusing on the implications for practice and research and following Cochrane guidelines.\n\nCochrane review conclusions are structured into implications for practice and implications for research, and must clearly reflect the certainty of evidence (e.g., using GRADE levels), the direction and magnitude of effects, and any limitations such as study heterogeneity or bias. They should be precise and actionable, summarizing whether an intervention likely benefits or harms patients and how confident we are in this judgment. Any uncertainty or evidence gaps should be plainly stated, with clear recommendations for future trials when important questions remain.\n\nUse coherent scientific language, and be as exact and accurate as possible in your conclusions. Avoid unnecessary repetition.\n\n**RCT Title:** Randomized indomethacin trial for prevention of intraventricular hemorrhage in very low birth weight infants.\n\n**Abstract:** We admitted 48 preterm neonates (600 to 1250 gm birth weight, normal 6-hour echoencephalograms) to a randomized prospective indomethacin or placebo trial for the prevention of neonatal intraventricular hemorrhage. Beginning at 6 postnatal hours, indomethacin or placebo was administered intravenously every 12 hours for a total of five doses. Cardiac ultrasound studies to assess the status of the ductus arteriosus were performed at 6 postnatal hours and on day 5. Urinary output, serum electrolytes, and renal and clotting functions were monitored. No differences in birth weight, gestational age, Apgar scores, or ventilatory needs were noted between the two groups. Six infants given indomethacin had intraventricular hemorrhage, compared to 14 control infants (P = 0.02). The indomethacin-treated group had significant decreases in serum prostaglandin values 30 hours after the initiation of therapy. The overall incidence of patent ductus arteriosus was 82% at 6 postnatal hours; 84% of the indomethacin-treated infants experienced closure of the ductus, compared to 60% of the placebo-treated patients. Closure of the ductus was not related to incidence of intraventricular hemorrhage. We speculate that indomethacin may provide some protection against neonatal intraventricular hemorrhage by acting on the cerebral microvasculature.\n\nPlease generate a scientifically plausible Author Conclusion section for a review of this RCT, following Cochrane guidelines.\n"
}
] |
[
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "**Author Conclusions:** Prophylactic indomethacin has short-term benefits for preterm infants including a reduction in the incidence of symptomatic PDA, PDA surgical ligation, and severe intraventricular haemorrhage. However, there is no evidence of effect on mortality or neurodevelopment.\n"
}
] |
Prophylactic indomethacin has short-term benefits for preterm infants including a reduction in the incidence of symptomatic PDA, PDA surgical ligation, and severe intraventricular haemorrhage. However, there is no evidence of effect on mortality or neurodevelopment.
|
CD000174
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "You are an expert medical assistant for biomedical document abstractive summarization. Your task is to generate the **Author Conclusions:** section from Cochrane systematic reviews, given a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) title and its abstract.\n\nThe RCT title will be provided in the **RCT Title:** section, and the abstract will be provided in the **Abstract:** section. You will generate the **Author Conclusions:** section based on the information provided in the abstract, focusing on the implications for practice and research and following Cochrane guidelines.\n\nCochrane review conclusions are structured into implications for practice and implications for research, and must clearly reflect the certainty of evidence (e.g., using GRADE levels), the direction and magnitude of effects, and any limitations such as study heterogeneity or bias. They should be precise and actionable, summarizing whether an intervention likely benefits or harms patients and how confident we are in this judgment. Any uncertainty or evidence gaps should be plainly stated, with clear recommendations for future trials when important questions remain.\n\nUse coherent scientific language, and be as exact and accurate as possible in your conclusions. Avoid unnecessary repetition.\n\n**RCT Title:** [Indomethacin in the prevention of subependymal-intraventricular hemorrhage in preterm newborns with conventional mechanical ventilation].\n\n**Abstract:** The results of a double blind study to evaluate the efficiency of prophylactic endovenous indomethacin versus placebo for prevention of intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) in newborn infants between 28 to 36 weeks of age who were intubated at the delivery room and required mechanical ventilation in NICU are presented. Fourty six patients required mechanical ventilation, but 14 neonates had IVH evaluated by ultrasound when were admitted to the Unit. At least 32 infants were studied, 16 for each group. There were no differences between the groups in weight, gestational age, sex and delivery way. The mobility was the same in relation to hialine membrane disease, sepsis, pneumonie and pneumotorax. The placebo group had more frequency of PDA and mortality (P < 0.5). There were no differences in mean airway pressure and arterial gases, also in glucose, platelets and urinary volume. The indomethacin group had mayor urinary density and FeNa but the results were always in normal ranges. The IVH was the same in both groups. We concluded that the indomethacin at the levels used did not produced alterations, and if the IVH is not prevented, were observed lesser severity of the same and the frequency of PDA and mortality are lesser. But still is necessary more number of cases for best conclusions.\n\nPlease generate a scientifically plausible Author Conclusion section for a review of this RCT, following Cochrane guidelines.\n"
}
] |
[
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "**Author Conclusions:** Prophylactic indomethacin has short-term benefits for preterm infants including a reduction in the incidence of symptomatic PDA, PDA surgical ligation, and severe intraventricular haemorrhage. However, there is no evidence of effect on mortality or neurodevelopment.\n"
}
] |
Prophylactic indomethacin has short-term benefits for preterm infants including a reduction in the incidence of symptomatic PDA, PDA surgical ligation, and severe intraventricular haemorrhage. However, there is no evidence of effect on mortality or neurodevelopment.
|
CD000174
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "You are an expert medical assistant for biomedical document abstractive summarization. Your task is to generate the **Author Conclusions:** section from Cochrane systematic reviews, given a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) title and its abstract.\n\nThe RCT title will be provided in the **RCT Title:** section, and the abstract will be provided in the **Abstract:** section. You will generate the **Author Conclusions:** section based on the information provided in the abstract, focusing on the implications for practice and research and following Cochrane guidelines.\n\nCochrane review conclusions are structured into implications for practice and implications for research, and must clearly reflect the certainty of evidence (e.g., using GRADE levels), the direction and magnitude of effects, and any limitations such as study heterogeneity or bias. They should be precise and actionable, summarizing whether an intervention likely benefits or harms patients and how confident we are in this judgment. Any uncertainty or evidence gaps should be plainly stated, with clear recommendations for future trials when important questions remain.\n\nUse coherent scientific language, and be as exact and accurate as possible in your conclusions. Avoid unnecessary repetition.\n\n**RCT Title:** Indomethacin therapy on the first day of life in infants with very low birth weight.\n\n**Abstract:** To investigate the optimal timing for treatment of small premature infants, we performed a double-blind, controlled trial of indomethacin therapy on the first day of life in 104 infants weighing between 700 and 1300 gm. Infants were given indomethacin or placebo at a mean age of 15 hours. Eleven of the 56 infants given placebo developed large left-to-right shunts through a patent ductus arteriosus. In contrast, only two of the 51 infants given indomethacin developed large shunts (P less than 0.025). There were no significant differences in incidence of surgical ligation, duration of oxygen therapy, duration of endotracheal intubation, days required to regain birth weight, or incidence of complications. However, the power of the tests of significance was low because of the small number of patients. Thus, although the incidence of large left-to-right ductus shunts was decreased in the indomethacin group, morbidity was not otherwise altered for the entire group of patients, possibly because of the relatively low incidence (21%) of large shunts in the placebo group. We conclude that although treatment with indomethacin on the first day of life appears to be safe, there is little advantage to its use in centers where the incidence of large shunts through a patent ductus arteriosus is relatively low.\n\nPlease generate a scientifically plausible Author Conclusion section for a review of this RCT, following Cochrane guidelines.\n"
}
] |
[
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "**Author Conclusions:** Prophylactic indomethacin has short-term benefits for preterm infants including a reduction in the incidence of symptomatic PDA, PDA surgical ligation, and severe intraventricular haemorrhage. However, there is no evidence of effect on mortality or neurodevelopment.\n"
}
] |
Prophylactic indomethacin has short-term benefits for preterm infants including a reduction in the incidence of symptomatic PDA, PDA surgical ligation, and severe intraventricular haemorrhage. However, there is no evidence of effect on mortality or neurodevelopment.
|
CD000174
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "You are an expert medical assistant for biomedical document abstractive summarization. Your task is to generate the **Author Conclusions:** section from Cochrane systematic reviews, given a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) title and its abstract.\n\nThe RCT title will be provided in the **RCT Title:** section, and the abstract will be provided in the **Abstract:** section. You will generate the **Author Conclusions:** section based on the information provided in the abstract, focusing on the implications for practice and research and following Cochrane guidelines.\n\nCochrane review conclusions are structured into implications for practice and implications for research, and must clearly reflect the certainty of evidence (e.g., using GRADE levels), the direction and magnitude of effects, and any limitations such as study heterogeneity or bias. They should be precise and actionable, summarizing whether an intervention likely benefits or harms patients and how confident we are in this judgment. Any uncertainty or evidence gaps should be plainly stated, with clear recommendations for future trials when important questions remain.\n\nUse coherent scientific language, and be as exact and accurate as possible in your conclusions. Avoid unnecessary repetition.\n\n**RCT Title:** Indomethacin prophylaxis for patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) in infants with a birth weight of less than 1250 grams.\n\n**Abstract:** Very low birth weight (VLBW, less than 1500 g) and extremely low birth weight infants (ELBW, less than 1000 g) are the premature infants that are most likely to develop symptomatic PDA. Intravenous indomethacin has proven effective in prevention of PDA in many prospective trials. This strategy will be a useful adjunctive therapy for premature infants in Thailand.\n To answer the following questions: 1. Will multiple doses of intravenous indomethacin, given to VLBW infants within the first day of life, effectively prevent the occurrence of symptomatic PDA? Are there any side effects or complications? 2. Will this strategy be more beneficial in ELBW?\n The study included thirty VLBW infants born at Ramathibodi Hospital, with birth weights ranging from 630 to 1230 g. They were randomized into 2 groups of 15 infants each. One group received 3 doses of intravenous indomethacin at the dosage of 0.2 mg/kg initially and then 0.1 mg/kg every 12 hours for 2 more doses; the second group received a placebo. The study was performed by a double blind control.\n Sixteen infants developed symptomatic PDA, 4 in the indomethacin group and 12 in the placebo group. The decrease in incidence of PDA is statistically significant. But when the data was analyzed separately for the VLBW and ELBW groups. The effects were only significantly different in ELBW but not yet significant in the VLBW group. There was a statistically significant difference in the incidence of severe intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) (grade 3 or higher) in the ELBW infants.\n Intravenous indomethacin therapy given to VLBW infants with a birth weight of less than 1250 g decreased incidence of symptomatic PDA with no significant permanent side effects. The effect was markedly noticeable in ELBW infants. Incidence of severe IVH was also markedly decreased in the ELBW infants who received indomethacin.\n\nPlease generate a scientifically plausible Author Conclusion section for a review of this RCT, following Cochrane guidelines.\n"
}
] |
[
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "**Author Conclusions:** Prophylactic indomethacin has short-term benefits for preterm infants including a reduction in the incidence of symptomatic PDA, PDA surgical ligation, and severe intraventricular haemorrhage. However, there is no evidence of effect on mortality or neurodevelopment.\n"
}
] |
Prophylactic indomethacin has short-term benefits for preterm infants including a reduction in the incidence of symptomatic PDA, PDA surgical ligation, and severe intraventricular haemorrhage. However, there is no evidence of effect on mortality or neurodevelopment.
|
CD008805
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "You are an expert medical assistant for biomedical document abstractive summarization. Your task is to generate the **Author Conclusions:** section from Cochrane systematic reviews, given a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) title and its abstract.\n\nThe RCT title will be provided in the **RCT Title:** section, and the abstract will be provided in the **Abstract:** section. You will generate the **Author Conclusions:** section based on the information provided in the abstract, focusing on the implications for practice and research and following Cochrane guidelines.\n\nCochrane review conclusions are structured into implications for practice and implications for research, and must clearly reflect the certainty of evidence (e.g., using GRADE levels), the direction and magnitude of effects, and any limitations such as study heterogeneity or bias. They should be precise and actionable, summarizing whether an intervention likely benefits or harms patients and how confident we are in this judgment. Any uncertainty or evidence gaps should be plainly stated, with clear recommendations for future trials when important questions remain.\n\nUse coherent scientific language, and be as exact and accurate as possible in your conclusions. Avoid unnecessary repetition.\n\n**RCT Title:** White phosphorus burns and massive hemolysis.\n\n**Abstract:** None\n\nPlease generate a scientifically plausible Author Conclusion section for a review of this RCT, following Cochrane guidelines.\n"
}
] |
[
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "**Author Conclusions:** First aid for phosphorus burns involves the common sense measures of acting promptly to remove the patient's clothes, irrigating the wound(s) with water or saline continuously, and removing phosphorus particles. There is no evidence that using copper sulphate to assist visualisation of phosphorus particles for removal is associated with better outcome, and some evidence that systemic absorption of copper sulphate may be harmful. We have so far been unable to identify any other comparisons relevant to informing other aspects of the care of patients with phosphorus burns. Future versions of this review will take account of information in articles published in languages other than English, which may contain additional evidence based on treatment comparisons.\n"
}
] |
First aid for phosphorus burns involves the common sense measures of acting promptly to remove the patient's clothes, irrigating the wound(s) with water or saline continuously, and removing phosphorus particles. There is no evidence that using copper sulphate to assist visualisation of phosphorus particles for removal is associated with better outcome, and some evidence that systemic absorption of copper sulphate may be harmful. We have so far been unable to identify any other comparisons relevant to informing other aspects of the care of patients with phosphorus burns. Future versions of this review will take account of information in articles published in languages other than English, which may contain additional evidence based on treatment comparisons.
|
CD008805
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "You are an expert medical assistant for biomedical document abstractive summarization. Your task is to generate the **Author Conclusions:** section from Cochrane systematic reviews, given a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) title and its abstract.\n\nThe RCT title will be provided in the **RCT Title:** section, and the abstract will be provided in the **Abstract:** section. You will generate the **Author Conclusions:** section based on the information provided in the abstract, focusing on the implications for practice and research and following Cochrane guidelines.\n\nCochrane review conclusions are structured into implications for practice and implications for research, and must clearly reflect the certainty of evidence (e.g., using GRADE levels), the direction and magnitude of effects, and any limitations such as study heterogeneity or bias. They should be precise and actionable, summarizing whether an intervention likely benefits or harms patients and how confident we are in this judgment. Any uncertainty or evidence gaps should be plainly stated, with clear recommendations for future trials when important questions remain.\n\nUse coherent scientific language, and be as exact and accurate as possible in your conclusions. Avoid unnecessary repetition.\n\n**RCT Title:** The treatment of chemical burns: specialized diagnostic, therapeutic, and prognostic considerations.\n\n**Abstract:** None\n\nPlease generate a scientifically plausible Author Conclusion section for a review of this RCT, following Cochrane guidelines.\n"
}
] |
[
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "**Author Conclusions:** First aid for phosphorus burns involves the common sense measures of acting promptly to remove the patient's clothes, irrigating the wound(s) with water or saline continuously, and removing phosphorus particles. There is no evidence that using copper sulphate to assist visualisation of phosphorus particles for removal is associated with better outcome, and some evidence that systemic absorption of copper sulphate may be harmful. We have so far been unable to identify any other comparisons relevant to informing other aspects of the care of patients with phosphorus burns. Future versions of this review will take account of information in articles published in languages other than English, which may contain additional evidence based on treatment comparisons.\n"
}
] |
First aid for phosphorus burns involves the common sense measures of acting promptly to remove the patient's clothes, irrigating the wound(s) with water or saline continuously, and removing phosphorus particles. There is no evidence that using copper sulphate to assist visualisation of phosphorus particles for removal is associated with better outcome, and some evidence that systemic absorption of copper sulphate may be harmful. We have so far been unable to identify any other comparisons relevant to informing other aspects of the care of patients with phosphorus burns. Future versions of this review will take account of information in articles published in languages other than English, which may contain additional evidence based on treatment comparisons.
|
CD000248
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "You are an expert medical assistant for biomedical document abstractive summarization. Your task is to generate the **Author Conclusions:** section from Cochrane systematic reviews, given a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) title and its abstract.\n\nThe RCT title will be provided in the **RCT Title:** section, and the abstract will be provided in the **Abstract:** section. You will generate the **Author Conclusions:** section based on the information provided in the abstract, focusing on the implications for practice and research and following Cochrane guidelines.\n\nCochrane review conclusions are structured into implications for practice and implications for research, and must clearly reflect the certainty of evidence (e.g., using GRADE levels), the direction and magnitude of effects, and any limitations such as study heterogeneity or bias. They should be precise and actionable, summarizing whether an intervention likely benefits or harms patients and how confident we are in this judgment. Any uncertainty or evidence gaps should be plainly stated, with clear recommendations for future trials when important questions remain.\n\nUse coherent scientific language, and be as exact and accurate as possible in your conclusions. Avoid unnecessary repetition.\n\n**RCT Title:** Trial of long-term anticoagulant therapy in the treatment of small stroke associated with a normal carotid arteriogram.\n\n**Abstract:** The clinical features of 49 patients who had sustained small strokes in the internal carotid artery territory, who were normotensive, free from cardiac or other relevant disease, and who each had a normal appropriate single vessel angiogram are presented. These were randomized into two groups: group A, 25 patients, who received only supportive treatment; group B, 24 patients who were treated with anticoagulants for an average period of 18 months. There was a reduced incidence of neurological episodes during the administration of anticoagulant therapy but, after treatment was discontinued, there was no significant difference between the two groups. In view of the relatively benign prognosis for this syndrome, unless special facilities exist for the personal control of anticoagulant treatment, the dangers may outweigh the benefits.\n\nPlease generate a scientifically plausible Author Conclusion section for a review of this RCT, following Cochrane guidelines.\n"
}
] |
[
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "**Author Conclusions:** Compared with control, there was no evidence of benefit from long-term anticoagulant therapy in people with presumed non-cardioembolic ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack, but there was a significant bleeding risk.\n"
}
] |
Compared with control, there was no evidence of benefit from long-term anticoagulant therapy in people with presumed non-cardioembolic ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack, but there was a significant bleeding risk.
|
CD000248
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "You are an expert medical assistant for biomedical document abstractive summarization. Your task is to generate the **Author Conclusions:** section from Cochrane systematic reviews, given a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) title and its abstract.\n\nThe RCT title will be provided in the **RCT Title:** section, and the abstract will be provided in the **Abstract:** section. You will generate the **Author Conclusions:** section based on the information provided in the abstract, focusing on the implications for practice and research and following Cochrane guidelines.\n\nCochrane review conclusions are structured into implications for practice and implications for research, and must clearly reflect the certainty of evidence (e.g., using GRADE levels), the direction and magnitude of effects, and any limitations such as study heterogeneity or bias. They should be precise and actionable, summarizing whether an intervention likely benefits or harms patients and how confident we are in this judgment. Any uncertainty or evidence gaps should be plainly stated, with clear recommendations for future trials when important questions remain.\n\nUse coherent scientific language, and be as exact and accurate as possible in your conclusions. Avoid unnecessary repetition.\n\n**RCT Title:** CEREBRAL VASCULAR DISEASE IN RELATION TO LONG-TERM ANTICOAGULANT THERAPY.\n\n**Abstract:** None\n\nPlease generate a scientifically plausible Author Conclusion section for a review of this RCT, following Cochrane guidelines.\n"
}
] |
[
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "**Author Conclusions:** Compared with control, there was no evidence of benefit from long-term anticoagulant therapy in people with presumed non-cardioembolic ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack, but there was a significant bleeding risk.\n"
}
] |
Compared with control, there was no evidence of benefit from long-term anticoagulant therapy in people with presumed non-cardioembolic ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack, but there was a significant bleeding risk.
|
CD000248
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "You are an expert medical assistant for biomedical document abstractive summarization. Your task is to generate the **Author Conclusions:** section from Cochrane systematic reviews, given a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) title and its abstract.\n\nThe RCT title will be provided in the **RCT Title:** section, and the abstract will be provided in the **Abstract:** section. You will generate the **Author Conclusions:** section based on the information provided in the abstract, focusing on the implications for practice and research and following Cochrane guidelines.\n\nCochrane review conclusions are structured into implications for practice and implications for research, and must clearly reflect the certainty of evidence (e.g., using GRADE levels), the direction and magnitude of effects, and any limitations such as study heterogeneity or bias. They should be precise and actionable, summarizing whether an intervention likely benefits or harms patients and how confident we are in this judgment. Any uncertainty or evidence gaps should be plainly stated, with clear recommendations for future trials when important questions remain.\n\nUse coherent scientific language, and be as exact and accurate as possible in your conclusions. Avoid unnecessary repetition.\n\n**RCT Title:** Anticoagulant therapy in cerebral infarction. Report on cooperative study.\n\n**Abstract:** None\n\nPlease generate a scientifically plausible Author Conclusion section for a review of this RCT, following Cochrane guidelines.\n"
}
] |
[
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "**Author Conclusions:** Compared with control, there was no evidence of benefit from long-term anticoagulant therapy in people with presumed non-cardioembolic ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack, but there was a significant bleeding risk.\n"
}
] |
Compared with control, there was no evidence of benefit from long-term anticoagulant therapy in people with presumed non-cardioembolic ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack, but there was a significant bleeding risk.
|
CD000248
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "You are an expert medical assistant for biomedical document abstractive summarization. Your task is to generate the **Author Conclusions:** section from Cochrane systematic reviews, given a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) title and its abstract.\n\nThe RCT title will be provided in the **RCT Title:** section, and the abstract will be provided in the **Abstract:** section. You will generate the **Author Conclusions:** section based on the information provided in the abstract, focusing on the implications for practice and research and following Cochrane guidelines.\n\nCochrane review conclusions are structured into implications for practice and implications for research, and must clearly reflect the certainty of evidence (e.g., using GRADE levels), the direction and magnitude of effects, and any limitations such as study heterogeneity or bias. They should be precise and actionable, summarizing whether an intervention likely benefits or harms patients and how confident we are in this judgment. Any uncertainty or evidence gaps should be plainly stated, with clear recommendations for future trials when important questions remain.\n\nUse coherent scientific language, and be as exact and accurate as possible in your conclusions. Avoid unnecessary repetition.\n\n**RCT Title:** CEREBRAL APOPLEXY. A CLINICAL, RADIOLOGICAL, ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHIC AND PATHOLOGICAL STUDY WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE PROGNOSIS OF CEREBRAL INFARCTION AND THE RESULT OF LONG-TERM ANTICOAGULATION THERAPY.\n\n**Abstract:** None\n\nPlease generate a scientifically plausible Author Conclusion section for a review of this RCT, following Cochrane guidelines.\n"
}
] |
[
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "**Author Conclusions:** Compared with control, there was no evidence of benefit from long-term anticoagulant therapy in people with presumed non-cardioembolic ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack, but there was a significant bleeding risk.\n"
}
] |
Compared with control, there was no evidence of benefit from long-term anticoagulant therapy in people with presumed non-cardioembolic ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack, but there was a significant bleeding risk.
|
CD004431
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "You are an expert medical assistant for biomedical document abstractive summarization. Your task is to generate the **Author Conclusions:** section from Cochrane systematic reviews, given a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) title and its abstract.\n\nThe RCT title will be provided in the **RCT Title:** section, and the abstract will be provided in the **Abstract:** section. You will generate the **Author Conclusions:** section based on the information provided in the abstract, focusing on the implications for practice and research and following Cochrane guidelines.\n\nCochrane review conclusions are structured into implications for practice and implications for research, and must clearly reflect the certainty of evidence (e.g., using GRADE levels), the direction and magnitude of effects, and any limitations such as study heterogeneity or bias. They should be precise and actionable, summarizing whether an intervention likely benefits or harms patients and how confident we are in this judgment. Any uncertainty or evidence gaps should be plainly stated, with clear recommendations for future trials when important questions remain.\n\nUse coherent scientific language, and be as exact and accurate as possible in your conclusions. Avoid unnecessary repetition.\n\n**RCT Title:** Computer-aided retraining of memory and attention in people with multiple sclerosis: a randomized, double-blind controlled trial.\n\n**Abstract:** Cognitive compromise is one of the main contributing factors to activity and participation restrictions in people with multiple sclerosis (MS). Computer-aided programs are used for retraining memory and attention, but data on the efficacy of these interventions are scarce.\n To assess the efficacy of computer-aided retraining of memory and attention in people with MS impaired in these abilities.\n Randomized, double-blind, controlled trial.\n Outpatients (n=82) with subjective complaints of poor attention or memory, confirmed by a score <80th percentile in at least two tests of the Brief Repeatable Battery of Neuropsychological Tests (BRBNT).\n Participants were randomized to two computer-assisted retraining interventions: memory and attention (study arm), and visuo-constructional and visuo-motor coordination (control arm). Both groups received 16 training sessions over 8 weeks.\n Improvement of 20% or more in at least two BRBNT test scores at 8 weeks compared to baseline (primary end point). Changes in depression and health-related quality of life.\n An improvement occurred in 45% of study patients vs. 43% of control patients (odds ratio 1.07, 95% confidence interval 0.44-2.64). The study treatment was better than the control treatment only on the word list generation test (p=0.016).\n This trial does not support the efficacy of specific memory and attention retraining in MS.\n\nPlease generate a scientifically plausible Author Conclusion section for a review of this RCT, following Cochrane guidelines.\n"
}
] |
[
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "**Author Conclusions:** The diversity of psychological interventions identified indicates the many ways in which they can potentially help people with MS. No definite conclusions can be made from this review. However there is reasonable evidence that cognitive behavioural approaches are beneficial in the treatment of depression, and in helping people adjust to, and cope with, having MS.\n"
}
] |
The diversity of psychological interventions identified indicates the many ways in which they can potentially help people with MS. No definite conclusions can be made from this review. However there is reasonable evidence that cognitive behavioural approaches are beneficial in the treatment of depression, and in helping people adjust to, and cope with, having MS.
|
CD004431
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "You are an expert medical assistant for biomedical document abstractive summarization. Your task is to generate the **Author Conclusions:** section from Cochrane systematic reviews, given a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) title and its abstract.\n\nThe RCT title will be provided in the **RCT Title:** section, and the abstract will be provided in the **Abstract:** section. You will generate the **Author Conclusions:** section based on the information provided in the abstract, focusing on the implications for practice and research and following Cochrane guidelines.\n\nCochrane review conclusions are structured into implications for practice and implications for research, and must clearly reflect the certainty of evidence (e.g., using GRADE levels), the direction and magnitude of effects, and any limitations such as study heterogeneity or bias. They should be precise and actionable, summarizing whether an intervention likely benefits or harms patients and how confident we are in this judgment. Any uncertainty or evidence gaps should be plainly stated, with clear recommendations for future trials when important questions remain.\n\nUse coherent scientific language, and be as exact and accurate as possible in your conclusions. Avoid unnecessary repetition.\n\n**RCT Title:** Neuropsychological counseling improves social behavior in cognitively-impaired multiple sclerosis patients.\n\n**Abstract:** We studied the effectiveness of a newly-developed cognitive-behavioral intervention in 15 patients with marked cognitive impairment and behavior disorder. The design was a single-blind test of a neuropsychological intervention, with pre- and post-treatment assessments of personality and social behavior. MS patients underwent neurological examination and neuropsychological testing at baseline. The patients were then randomly assigned to neuropsychological counseling or standard, non-specific supportive psychotherapy. The active 12-week treatment emphasized enhancement of insight through education, social skills training, and behavior modification. All patients were re-examined within 2 weeks of the termination of treatment. Neuropsychological technicians were blind to treatment condition. Both groups showed evidence of cognitive impairment and personality/behavior disorder prior to treatment and were well matched on demographic, disability, and cognitive measures. Patients who underwent neuropsychological counseling showed significant positive response on measures of social behavior (e.g. excessive ego-centric speech) compared to those who underwent standard counseling. We conclude that these data support the use of non-pharmacological, neuropsychological counseling in patients with acquired, MS-associated behavior disorder.\n\nPlease generate a scientifically plausible Author Conclusion section for a review of this RCT, following Cochrane guidelines.\n"
}
] |
[
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "**Author Conclusions:** The diversity of psychological interventions identified indicates the many ways in which they can potentially help people with MS. No definite conclusions can be made from this review. However there is reasonable evidence that cognitive behavioural approaches are beneficial in the treatment of depression, and in helping people adjust to, and cope with, having MS.\n"
}
] |
The diversity of psychological interventions identified indicates the many ways in which they can potentially help people with MS. No definite conclusions can be made from this review. However there is reasonable evidence that cognitive behavioural approaches are beneficial in the treatment of depression, and in helping people adjust to, and cope with, having MS.
|
CD004431
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "You are an expert medical assistant for biomedical document abstractive summarization. Your task is to generate the **Author Conclusions:** section from Cochrane systematic reviews, given a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) title and its abstract.\n\nThe RCT title will be provided in the **RCT Title:** section, and the abstract will be provided in the **Abstract:** section. You will generate the **Author Conclusions:** section based on the information provided in the abstract, focusing on the implications for practice and research and following Cochrane guidelines.\n\nCochrane review conclusions are structured into implications for practice and implications for research, and must clearly reflect the certainty of evidence (e.g., using GRADE levels), the direction and magnitude of effects, and any limitations such as study heterogeneity or bias. They should be precise and actionable, summarizing whether an intervention likely benefits or harms patients and how confident we are in this judgment. Any uncertainty or evidence gaps should be plainly stated, with clear recommendations for future trials when important questions remain.\n\nUse coherent scientific language, and be as exact and accurate as possible in your conclusions. Avoid unnecessary repetition.\n\n**RCT Title:** An evaluation of cognitive-behaviour therapy for depression in patients with multiple sclerosis.\n\n**Abstract:** Twenty depressed multiple sclerotic patients were randomly allocated either to cognitive-behaviour therapy or to a waiting list control condition. Assessment of depressive symptoms was conducted at pre-treatment, post-treatment, and a four-week follow-up. In comparison to the waiting list condition, cognitive-behaviour therapy was found to result in clinically and statistically significant improvement on most measures. Although the mechanism by which such treatment achieves its effects is unclear, these results clearly support the use of cognitive-behavioural treatments for depression in this population.\n\nPlease generate a scientifically plausible Author Conclusion section for a review of this RCT, following Cochrane guidelines.\n"
}
] |
[
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "**Author Conclusions:** The diversity of psychological interventions identified indicates the many ways in which they can potentially help people with MS. No definite conclusions can be made from this review. However there is reasonable evidence that cognitive behavioural approaches are beneficial in the treatment of depression, and in helping people adjust to, and cope with, having MS.\n"
}
] |
The diversity of psychological interventions identified indicates the many ways in which they can potentially help people with MS. No definite conclusions can be made from this review. However there is reasonable evidence that cognitive behavioural approaches are beneficial in the treatment of depression, and in helping people adjust to, and cope with, having MS.
|
CD004431
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "You are an expert medical assistant for biomedical document abstractive summarization. Your task is to generate the **Author Conclusions:** section from Cochrane systematic reviews, given a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) title and its abstract.\n\nThe RCT title will be provided in the **RCT Title:** section, and the abstract will be provided in the **Abstract:** section. You will generate the **Author Conclusions:** section based on the information provided in the abstract, focusing on the implications for practice and research and following Cochrane guidelines.\n\nCochrane review conclusions are structured into implications for practice and implications for research, and must clearly reflect the certainty of evidence (e.g., using GRADE levels), the direction and magnitude of effects, and any limitations such as study heterogeneity or bias. They should be precise and actionable, summarizing whether an intervention likely benefits or harms patients and how confident we are in this judgment. Any uncertainty or evidence gaps should be plainly stated, with clear recommendations for future trials when important questions remain.\n\nUse coherent scientific language, and be as exact and accurate as possible in your conclusions. Avoid unnecessary repetition.\n\n**RCT Title:** Efficacy of stress-inoculation training in coping with multiple sclerosis.\n\n**Abstract:** None\n\nPlease generate a scientifically plausible Author Conclusion section for a review of this RCT, following Cochrane guidelines.\n"
}
] |
[
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "**Author Conclusions:** The diversity of psychological interventions identified indicates the many ways in which they can potentially help people with MS. No definite conclusions can be made from this review. However there is reasonable evidence that cognitive behavioural approaches are beneficial in the treatment of depression, and in helping people adjust to, and cope with, having MS.\n"
}
] |
The diversity of psychological interventions identified indicates the many ways in which they can potentially help people with MS. No definite conclusions can be made from this review. However there is reasonable evidence that cognitive behavioural approaches are beneficial in the treatment of depression, and in helping people adjust to, and cope with, having MS.
|
CD004431
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "You are an expert medical assistant for biomedical document abstractive summarization. Your task is to generate the **Author Conclusions:** section from Cochrane systematic reviews, given a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) title and its abstract.\n\nThe RCT title will be provided in the **RCT Title:** section, and the abstract will be provided in the **Abstract:** section. You will generate the **Author Conclusions:** section based on the information provided in the abstract, focusing on the implications for practice and research and following Cochrane guidelines.\n\nCochrane review conclusions are structured into implications for practice and implications for research, and must clearly reflect the certainty of evidence (e.g., using GRADE levels), the direction and magnitude of effects, and any limitations such as study heterogeneity or bias. They should be precise and actionable, summarizing whether an intervention likely benefits or harms patients and how confident we are in this judgment. Any uncertainty or evidence gaps should be plainly stated, with clear recommendations for future trials when important questions remain.\n\nUse coherent scientific language, and be as exact and accurate as possible in your conclusions. Avoid unnecessary repetition.\n\n**RCT Title:** A randomized clinical trial of a wellness intervention for women with multiple sclerosis.\n\n**Abstract:** To examine the effects of a wellness intervention program for women with multiple sclerosis (MS) on health behaviors and quality of life (QOL).\n Randomized clinical trial.\n Community setting in the southwestern United States.\n Convenience sample of 113 women with physician-confirmed MS (mean age, 45.79y).\n The 2-phase intervention program included lifestyle-change classes for 8 weeks, then telephone follow-up for 3 months. Participants were followed over an 8-month period.\n A series of self-report instruments to measure barriers, resources, self-efficacy for health behaviors, health promotion behaviors, and health-related QOL were completed at baseline, 2 months (after the classes), 5 months (after telephone follow-up), and at 8 months. Principal outcomes measures were health-promoting behaviors (scores on the Health Promoting Lifestyle Profile II) and QOL (scores on the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey [SF-36] scales).\n Hierarchical linear modeling techniques revealed a statistically significant group by time effect for self-efficacy for health behaviors, health-promoting behaviors, and the mental health and pain scales of the SF-36.\n These data provide initial support for the positive effects of wellness interventions to improve health behaviors and selected dimensions of QOL for women with MS.\n\nPlease generate a scientifically plausible Author Conclusion section for a review of this RCT, following Cochrane guidelines.\n"
}
] |
[
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "**Author Conclusions:** The diversity of psychological interventions identified indicates the many ways in which they can potentially help people with MS. No definite conclusions can be made from this review. However there is reasonable evidence that cognitive behavioural approaches are beneficial in the treatment of depression, and in helping people adjust to, and cope with, having MS.\n"
}
] |
The diversity of psychological interventions identified indicates the many ways in which they can potentially help people with MS. No definite conclusions can be made from this review. However there is reasonable evidence that cognitive behavioural approaches are beneficial in the treatment of depression, and in helping people adjust to, and cope with, having MS.
|
CD004431
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "You are an expert medical assistant for biomedical document abstractive summarization. Your task is to generate the **Author Conclusions:** section from Cochrane systematic reviews, given a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) title and its abstract.\n\nThe RCT title will be provided in the **RCT Title:** section, and the abstract will be provided in the **Abstract:** section. You will generate the **Author Conclusions:** section based on the information provided in the abstract, focusing on the implications for practice and research and following Cochrane guidelines.\n\nCochrane review conclusions are structured into implications for practice and implications for research, and must clearly reflect the certainty of evidence (e.g., using GRADE levels), the direction and magnitude of effects, and any limitations such as study heterogeneity or bias. They should be precise and actionable, summarizing whether an intervention likely benefits or harms patients and how confident we are in this judgment. Any uncertainty or evidence gaps should be plainly stated, with clear recommendations for future trials when important questions remain.\n\nUse coherent scientific language, and be as exact and accurate as possible in your conclusions. Avoid unnecessary repetition.\n\n**RCT Title:** Evaluation of cognitive assessment and cognitive intervention for people with multiple sclerosis.\n\n**Abstract:** Cognitive problems in multiple sclerosis are common but any possible benefits of treatment remain uncertain. The aim of the study was to evaluate the benefits of providing a psychology service, including cognitive assessment and intervention, to patients with multiple sclerosis.\n The study was a single blind randomised controlled trial. A total of 240 patients with clinically definite, laboratory supported, or clinically probable multiple sclerosis were recruited from an multiple sclerosis management clinic and assessed on a brief screening battery. They were randomised into three groups. The control group received no further intervention. The assessment group received a detailed cognitive assessment, the result of which was fed back to staff involved in the patients' care. The treatment group received the same detailed cognitive assessment and a treatment programme designed to help reduce the impact of their cognitive problems. Patients were followed up 4 and 8 months later on the general health questionnaire (GHQ-28), extended activities of daily living scale, SF-36, everyday memory questionnaire, dysexecutive syndrome questionnaire, and memory aids questionnaire.\n The three groups were compared on the outcome measures at 4 and 8 months after recruitment. There were few significant differences between the groups and those that occurred favoured the control group. Overall, the results showed no effect of the interventions on mood, quality of life, subjective cognitive impairment or independence.\n The study failed to detect any significant effects of cognitive assessment or cognitive intervention in this cohort of people with multiple sclerosis.\n\nPlease generate a scientifically plausible Author Conclusion section for a review of this RCT, following Cochrane guidelines.\n"
}
] |
[
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "**Author Conclusions:** The diversity of psychological interventions identified indicates the many ways in which they can potentially help people with MS. No definite conclusions can be made from this review. However there is reasonable evidence that cognitive behavioural approaches are beneficial in the treatment of depression, and in helping people adjust to, and cope with, having MS.\n"
}
] |
The diversity of psychological interventions identified indicates the many ways in which they can potentially help people with MS. No definite conclusions can be made from this review. However there is reasonable evidence that cognitive behavioural approaches are beneficial in the treatment of depression, and in helping people adjust to, and cope with, having MS.
|
CD004431
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "You are an expert medical assistant for biomedical document abstractive summarization. Your task is to generate the **Author Conclusions:** section from Cochrane systematic reviews, given a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) title and its abstract.\n\nThe RCT title will be provided in the **RCT Title:** section, and the abstract will be provided in the **Abstract:** section. You will generate the **Author Conclusions:** section based on the information provided in the abstract, focusing on the implications for practice and research and following Cochrane guidelines.\n\nCochrane review conclusions are structured into implications for practice and implications for research, and must clearly reflect the certainty of evidence (e.g., using GRADE levels), the direction and magnitude of effects, and any limitations such as study heterogeneity or bias. They should be precise and actionable, summarizing whether an intervention likely benefits or harms patients and how confident we are in this judgment. Any uncertainty or evidence gaps should be plainly stated, with clear recommendations for future trials when important questions remain.\n\nUse coherent scientific language, and be as exact and accurate as possible in your conclusions. Avoid unnecessary repetition.\n\n**RCT Title:** Effects of treatment for depression on fatigue in multiple sclerosis.\n\n**Abstract:** There has long been a belief that depression contributes to fatigue in multiple sclerosis (MS) although supporting data are minimal at best. Clinical guidelines for the treatment of fatigue include recommendations for the treatment of depression in the absence of clear empirical support. The goal of this study was to examine the effects of treatment for depression on fatigue in MS.\n Sixty patients with a relapsing form of MS and moderate to severe depression were randomly assigned to one of three validated 16-week treatments for depression: individual cognitive behavioral therapy, group psychotherapy, or sertraline. Assessments at baseline and treatment cessation included the primary outcome measure, fatigue assessment instrument (FAI), and Beck depression inventory (BDI).\n The total FAI and the global fatigue severity subscale were significantly reduced over the course of treatment (p values <.02). Other subscales did not change significantly. Secondary analyses showed change in global fatigue severity was associated with change in BDI (p =.03) but change in total FAI was only marginally related to change in BDI (p =.05). These relationships were due entirely to change in mood (p values <.02) and not to change in cognitive or vegetative symptoms (p values >.17).\n These findings suggest that treatment for depression is associated with reductions in the severity of fatigue symptoms, and that this relationship is due primarily to treatment related changes in mood.\n\nPlease generate a scientifically plausible Author Conclusion section for a review of this RCT, following Cochrane guidelines.\n"
}
] |
[
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "**Author Conclusions:** The diversity of psychological interventions identified indicates the many ways in which they can potentially help people with MS. No definite conclusions can be made from this review. However there is reasonable evidence that cognitive behavioural approaches are beneficial in the treatment of depression, and in helping people adjust to, and cope with, having MS.\n"
}
] |
The diversity of psychological interventions identified indicates the many ways in which they can potentially help people with MS. No definite conclusions can be made from this review. However there is reasonable evidence that cognitive behavioural approaches are beneficial in the treatment of depression, and in helping people adjust to, and cope with, having MS.
|
CD004431
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "You are an expert medical assistant for biomedical document abstractive summarization. Your task is to generate the **Author Conclusions:** section from Cochrane systematic reviews, given a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) title and its abstract.\n\nThe RCT title will be provided in the **RCT Title:** section, and the abstract will be provided in the **Abstract:** section. You will generate the **Author Conclusions:** section based on the information provided in the abstract, focusing on the implications for practice and research and following Cochrane guidelines.\n\nCochrane review conclusions are structured into implications for practice and implications for research, and must clearly reflect the certainty of evidence (e.g., using GRADE levels), the direction and magnitude of effects, and any limitations such as study heterogeneity or bias. They should be precise and actionable, summarizing whether an intervention likely benefits or harms patients and how confident we are in this judgment. Any uncertainty or evidence gaps should be plainly stated, with clear recommendations for future trials when important questions remain.\n\nUse coherent scientific language, and be as exact and accurate as possible in your conclusions. Avoid unnecessary repetition.\n\n**RCT Title:** Group psychotherapy: benefits in multiple sclerosis.\n\n**Abstract:** This study investigates the relationship between group psychotherapy and the psychologic adjustment of patients with a primary diagnosis of multiple sclerosis (MS). It was speculated that such a program would decrease both patient depression and anxiety, at the same time increasing self-concept and self-direction. Forty-one hospitalized MS patients were screened for mental status, then administered a test battery consisting of the Depression 30, IPAT Anxiety Scale, Nowicki-Strickland Internal-External Scale, and Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Following this, patients were matched into triads on the basis of pretest scores. Each member of the triad was then randomly assigned to one of three groups: insight-oriented, current events, control (nontreatment). At the end of 50 group sessions, all patients were reassessed using the same test battery. Results were analyzed by means of analysis of covariance and the nonparametric Friedman test. Post-hoc procedures were performed with the following results: 1) the insight-oriented therapy group was significantly less depressed than both the current events group and the control group and 2) both the therapy and the current events groups were significantly more internally oriented than the control. Not only does group therapy per se seem to benefit the MS patient, but any supervised group involvement appears to improve significantly patient emotional state.\n\nPlease generate a scientifically plausible Author Conclusion section for a review of this RCT, following Cochrane guidelines.\n"
}
] |
[
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "**Author Conclusions:** The diversity of psychological interventions identified indicates the many ways in which they can potentially help people with MS. No definite conclusions can be made from this review. However there is reasonable evidence that cognitive behavioural approaches are beneficial in the treatment of depression, and in helping people adjust to, and cope with, having MS.\n"
}
] |
The diversity of psychological interventions identified indicates the many ways in which they can potentially help people with MS. No definite conclusions can be made from this review. However there is reasonable evidence that cognitive behavioural approaches are beneficial in the treatment of depression, and in helping people adjust to, and cope with, having MS.
|
CD004431
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "You are an expert medical assistant for biomedical document abstractive summarization. Your task is to generate the **Author Conclusions:** section from Cochrane systematic reviews, given a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) title and its abstract.\n\nThe RCT title will be provided in the **RCT Title:** section, and the abstract will be provided in the **Abstract:** section. You will generate the **Author Conclusions:** section based on the information provided in the abstract, focusing on the implications for practice and research and following Cochrane guidelines.\n\nCochrane review conclusions are structured into implications for practice and implications for research, and must clearly reflect the certainty of evidence (e.g., using GRADE levels), the direction and magnitude of effects, and any limitations such as study heterogeneity or bias. They should be precise and actionable, summarizing whether an intervention likely benefits or harms patients and how confident we are in this judgment. Any uncertainty or evidence gaps should be plainly stated, with clear recommendations for future trials when important questions remain.\n\nUse coherent scientific language, and be as exact and accurate as possible in your conclusions. Avoid unnecessary repetition.\n\n**RCT Title:** Telephone-administered cognitive-behavioral therapy for the treatment of depressive symptoms in multiple sclerosis.\n\n**Abstract:** This study examined the efficacy of an 8-week telephone-administered cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for the treatment of depressive symptomatology in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients. The treatment, Coping with MS (CMS), included a patient workbook designed to structure the treatment, provide visual aids, and help with homework assignments. Thirty-two patients with MS, who scored at least 15 on the Profile of Mood States Depression-Dejection scale, were randomly assigned to either the telephone CMS or to a usual-care control (UCC) condition. Depressive symptomatology decreased significantly in the CMS condition compared with the UCC condition. Furthermore, adherence to interferon beta-1a, a disease-modifying medication for the treatment of MS, was significantly better at the 4-month follow-up among patients who received CMS as compared with those in the UCC condition.\n\nPlease generate a scientifically plausible Author Conclusion section for a review of this RCT, following Cochrane guidelines.\n"
}
] |
[
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "**Author Conclusions:** The diversity of psychological interventions identified indicates the many ways in which they can potentially help people with MS. No definite conclusions can be made from this review. However there is reasonable evidence that cognitive behavioural approaches are beneficial in the treatment of depression, and in helping people adjust to, and cope with, having MS.\n"
}
] |
The diversity of psychological interventions identified indicates the many ways in which they can potentially help people with MS. No definite conclusions can be made from this review. However there is reasonable evidence that cognitive behavioural approaches are beneficial in the treatment of depression, and in helping people adjust to, and cope with, having MS.
|
CD004431
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "You are an expert medical assistant for biomedical document abstractive summarization. Your task is to generate the **Author Conclusions:** section from Cochrane systematic reviews, given a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) title and its abstract.\n\nThe RCT title will be provided in the **RCT Title:** section, and the abstract will be provided in the **Abstract:** section. You will generate the **Author Conclusions:** section based on the information provided in the abstract, focusing on the implications for practice and research and following Cochrane guidelines.\n\nCochrane review conclusions are structured into implications for practice and implications for research, and must clearly reflect the certainty of evidence (e.g., using GRADE levels), the direction and magnitude of effects, and any limitations such as study heterogeneity or bias. They should be precise and actionable, summarizing whether an intervention likely benefits or harms patients and how confident we are in this judgment. Any uncertainty or evidence gaps should be plainly stated, with clear recommendations for future trials when important questions remain.\n\nUse coherent scientific language, and be as exact and accurate as possible in your conclusions. Avoid unnecessary repetition.\n\n**RCT Title:** Comparative outcomes for individual cognitive-behavior therapy, supportive-expressive group psychotherapy, and sertraline for the treatment of depression in multiple sclerosis.\n\n**Abstract:** This study compared the efficacy of 3 16-week treatments for depression in 63 patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) and major depressive disorder (MDD): individual cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), supportive-expressive group therapy (SEG). and the antidepressant sertraline. Significant reductions were seen from pre- to posttreatment in all measures of depression. Intent-to-treat and completers analyses using the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI; A. T. Beck, C. H. Ward. M. Medelson. J. Mock, & J. Erbaugh, 1961) and MDD diagnosis found that CBT and sertraline were more effective than SEG at reducing depression. These results were largely supported by the BDI-18, which eliminates BDI items confounded with MS. However, the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (M. Hamilton, 1960) did not show consistent differences between treatments. Reasons for this inconsistency are discussed. These findings suggest that CBT or sertraline is more likely to be effective in treating MDD in MS compared with supportive group treatments.\n\nPlease generate a scientifically plausible Author Conclusion section for a review of this RCT, following Cochrane guidelines.\n"
}
] |
[
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "**Author Conclusions:** The diversity of psychological interventions identified indicates the many ways in which they can potentially help people with MS. No definite conclusions can be made from this review. However there is reasonable evidence that cognitive behavioural approaches are beneficial in the treatment of depression, and in helping people adjust to, and cope with, having MS.\n"
}
] |
The diversity of psychological interventions identified indicates the many ways in which they can potentially help people with MS. No definite conclusions can be made from this review. However there is reasonable evidence that cognitive behavioural approaches are beneficial in the treatment of depression, and in helping people adjust to, and cope with, having MS.
|
CD004431
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "You are an expert medical assistant for biomedical document abstractive summarization. Your task is to generate the **Author Conclusions:** section from Cochrane systematic reviews, given a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) title and its abstract.\n\nThe RCT title will be provided in the **RCT Title:** section, and the abstract will be provided in the **Abstract:** section. You will generate the **Author Conclusions:** section based on the information provided in the abstract, focusing on the implications for practice and research and following Cochrane guidelines.\n\nCochrane review conclusions are structured into implications for practice and implications for research, and must clearly reflect the certainty of evidence (e.g., using GRADE levels), the direction and magnitude of effects, and any limitations such as study heterogeneity or bias. They should be precise and actionable, summarizing whether an intervention likely benefits or harms patients and how confident we are in this judgment. Any uncertainty or evidence gaps should be plainly stated, with clear recommendations for future trials when important questions remain.\n\nUse coherent scientific language, and be as exact and accurate as possible in your conclusions. Avoid unnecessary repetition.\n\n**RCT Title:** Unit management of depression of patients with multiple sclerosis using cognitive remediation strategies: a preliminary study.\n\n**Abstract:** Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic, often progressive neurologic disorder characterized by cerebral and spinal cord lesions. Patients with advanced MS often require continuous supervision in a long-term skilled nursing facility. Many of these patients experience clinical levels of depression. For this experiment, we randomly assigned MS patients living in a skilled nursing facility to either a control condition or an extended treatment protocol. The protocol consisted of assigning individual certified nursing assistants (CNAs) to each patient, in-service training for the CNAs, and the use of memory notebooks. All patients completed the short version of the Beck Depression Inventory and several measures of cognitive functioning at the start and end of the study. The results indicate statistically and clinically significant improvements in the depression of patients in the treatment but not in the control condition. These results led to recommendations for the treatment of MS patients living in long-term skilled nursing facilities and for additional research.\n\nPlease generate a scientifically plausible Author Conclusion section for a review of this RCT, following Cochrane guidelines.\n"
}
] |
[
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "**Author Conclusions:** The diversity of psychological interventions identified indicates the many ways in which they can potentially help people with MS. No definite conclusions can be made from this review. However there is reasonable evidence that cognitive behavioural approaches are beneficial in the treatment of depression, and in helping people adjust to, and cope with, having MS.\n"
}
] |
The diversity of psychological interventions identified indicates the many ways in which they can potentially help people with MS. No definite conclusions can be made from this review. However there is reasonable evidence that cognitive behavioural approaches are beneficial in the treatment of depression, and in helping people adjust to, and cope with, having MS.
|
CD004431
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "You are an expert medical assistant for biomedical document abstractive summarization. Your task is to generate the **Author Conclusions:** section from Cochrane systematic reviews, given a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) title and its abstract.\n\nThe RCT title will be provided in the **RCT Title:** section, and the abstract will be provided in the **Abstract:** section. You will generate the **Author Conclusions:** section based on the information provided in the abstract, focusing on the implications for practice and research and following Cochrane guidelines.\n\nCochrane review conclusions are structured into implications for practice and implications for research, and must clearly reflect the certainty of evidence (e.g., using GRADE levels), the direction and magnitude of effects, and any limitations such as study heterogeneity or bias. They should be precise and actionable, summarizing whether an intervention likely benefits or harms patients and how confident we are in this judgment. Any uncertainty or evidence gaps should be plainly stated, with clear recommendations for future trials when important questions remain.\n\nUse coherent scientific language, and be as exact and accurate as possible in your conclusions. Avoid unnecessary repetition.\n\n**RCT Title:** Effects of neuropsychological treatment in patients with multiple sclerosis.\n\n**Abstract:** The chronic and progressive nature of multiple sclerosis (MS) often excludes patients from neuropsychological treatment. At the Multiple Sclerosis Rehabilitation Hospital, Haslev, 40 patients with mild to moderate cognitive and behavioral impairment associated with MS were randomized to either specific cognitive treatment (20 pts) by direct training, compensatory strategies and neuropsychotherapy, or to non-specific, deliberately diffuse mental stimulation (20 pts). Treatment was for a mean of 46 days. The effects of treatment were evaluated by neuropsychological tests before treatment, immediately after treatment (short-term effects) and 6 months later (long-term effects). After short-term treatment, effects on cognitive measures were not convincing, but on the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) the specific cognitive treatment group reported significantly less depression. After 6 months only this group showed an effect, since the visuo-spatial memory was improved. However, the depression ratings (BDI) were almost maintained from the short-term level. Interestingly, the non-specific treatment group rated themselves as significantly more depressed. Conclusively, it is worth while to offer specific neuropsychological treatment to MS patients with cognitive and behavioral dysfunction.\n\nPlease generate a scientifically plausible Author Conclusion section for a review of this RCT, following Cochrane guidelines.\n"
}
] |
[
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "**Author Conclusions:** The diversity of psychological interventions identified indicates the many ways in which they can potentially help people with MS. No definite conclusions can be made from this review. However there is reasonable evidence that cognitive behavioural approaches are beneficial in the treatment of depression, and in helping people adjust to, and cope with, having MS.\n"
}
] |
The diversity of psychological interventions identified indicates the many ways in which they can potentially help people with MS. No definite conclusions can be made from this review. However there is reasonable evidence that cognitive behavioural approaches are beneficial in the treatment of depression, and in helping people adjust to, and cope with, having MS.
|
CD004431
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "You are an expert medical assistant for biomedical document abstractive summarization. Your task is to generate the **Author Conclusions:** section from Cochrane systematic reviews, given a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) title and its abstract.\n\nThe RCT title will be provided in the **RCT Title:** section, and the abstract will be provided in the **Abstract:** section. You will generate the **Author Conclusions:** section based on the information provided in the abstract, focusing on the implications for practice and research and following Cochrane guidelines.\n\nCochrane review conclusions are structured into implications for practice and implications for research, and must clearly reflect the certainty of evidence (e.g., using GRADE levels), the direction and magnitude of effects, and any limitations such as study heterogeneity or bias. They should be precise and actionable, summarizing whether an intervention likely benefits or harms patients and how confident we are in this judgment. Any uncertainty or evidence gaps should be plainly stated, with clear recommendations for future trials when important questions remain.\n\nUse coherent scientific language, and be as exact and accurate as possible in your conclusions. Avoid unnecessary repetition.\n\n**RCT Title:** Symptom management and adjustment of patients with multiple sclerosis: a 4-year longitudinal intervention study.\n\n**Abstract:** The researchers studied the effectiveness of a nursing intervention in promoting adjustment and symptom management in individuals with multiple sclerosis (MS). This was a 4-year longitudinal study to determine whether the 4-week intensive outpatient program was effective in increasing adjustment to MS and if the treatment effect would last over time. A sample of 27 individuals with MS participated in the study. Treatment participants had significant improvements in symptom management at the 4-year follow up. This improvement was attributable to signficant improvements in sleep and fatigue levels. Although adjustment and self-efficacy scores improved in the treatment group over time, this improvement was not superior to the control group. This was anticipated because the behavioral changes would precede improvement in adjustment to life following the diagnosis of MS.\n\nPlease generate a scientifically plausible Author Conclusion section for a review of this RCT, following Cochrane guidelines.\n"
}
] |
[
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "**Author Conclusions:** The diversity of psychological interventions identified indicates the many ways in which they can potentially help people with MS. No definite conclusions can be made from this review. However there is reasonable evidence that cognitive behavioural approaches are beneficial in the treatment of depression, and in helping people adjust to, and cope with, having MS.\n"
}
] |
The diversity of psychological interventions identified indicates the many ways in which they can potentially help people with MS. No definite conclusions can be made from this review. However there is reasonable evidence that cognitive behavioural approaches are beneficial in the treatment of depression, and in helping people adjust to, and cope with, having MS.
|
CD008039
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "You are an expert medical assistant for biomedical document abstractive summarization. Your task is to generate the **Author Conclusions:** section from Cochrane systematic reviews, given a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) title and its abstract.\n\nThe RCT title will be provided in the **RCT Title:** section, and the abstract will be provided in the **Abstract:** section. You will generate the **Author Conclusions:** section based on the information provided in the abstract, focusing on the implications for practice and research and following Cochrane guidelines.\n\nCochrane review conclusions are structured into implications for practice and implications for research, and must clearly reflect the certainty of evidence (e.g., using GRADE levels), the direction and magnitude of effects, and any limitations such as study heterogeneity or bias. They should be precise and actionable, summarizing whether an intervention likely benefits or harms patients and how confident we are in this judgment. Any uncertainty or evidence gaps should be plainly stated, with clear recommendations for future trials when important questions remain.\n\nUse coherent scientific language, and be as exact and accurate as possible in your conclusions. Avoid unnecessary repetition.\n\n**RCT Title:** Efficacy of nonprescription doses of ibuprofen for treating migraine headache. a randomized controlled trial.\n\n**Abstract:** To evaluate the efficacy and safety of ibuprofen, 200 mg and 400 mg, compared with placebo and each other for the treatment of pain of migraine headache.\n Migraine headache is a common illness with significant social and economic impact.\n Randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial of 6 hours' treatment duration.\n Fifteen investigators at 17 private practice and referral centers in the United States participated in this study of 660 outpatient adults aged 18 to 84 years with migraine headache of moderate to severe intensity. Each patient was randomly assigned to a single dose of study medication: ibuprofen 200 mg (n = 216) or 400 mg (n = 223), or placebo (n = 221). The percentage of patients with a reduction in baseline headache intensity from severe or moderate to mild or none 2 hours after treatment and the headache pain intensity difference from baseline at 2 hours were the primary efficacy measures. Secondary outcomes included other measures of pain relief, severity differences from baseline for migraine-associated symptoms of nausea, photophobia, phonophobia, and functional disability, and percentage of patients with migraine-associated symptoms reduced to none.\n Significantly (P < or = .006) more patients treated with ibuprofen, 200 mg or 400 mg, reported mild to no pain after 2 hours (41.7% and 40.8%, respectively), compared with those treated with placebo (28.1%). The mean pain intensity difference from baseline measured at 2 hours was significantly (P < or = .001) greater for patients treated with ibuprofen 200 mg or 400 mg (0.68 and 0.65, respectively), compared with those treated with placebo (0.39). Statistically significant differences in favor of both doses of ibuprofen over placebo were observed for mean pain intensity difference at 1 hour after treatment. In patients with severe baseline pain intensity, ibuprofen, 400 mg, was significantly (P < or = .048) superior to placebo for the primary efficacy end points, while ibuprofen, 200 mg, was not. Ibuprofen, 200 mg and 400 mg, were statistically significantly more effective than placebo for all clinically important secondary pain relief outcomes. Mean severity changes of migraine-associated symptoms of nausea, photophobia, phonophobia, and functional disability at 2 and 6 hours were significantly (P < or = .03) in favor of both doses of ibuprofen over placebo, and results for the percentage of patients with symptoms reduced to none consistently, although less often statistically significant, favored ibuprofen. No statistically significant differences in adverse events were found among treatment groups.\n Ibuprofen at doses of 200 mg and 400 mg is an efficacious, cost-effective, well-tolerated, single-ingredient nonprescription treatment for pain of migraine headache. In addition, while not always statistically significant, ibuprofen provided a beneficial effect on associated symptoms of migraine including nausea, photophobia, phonophobia, and functional disability.\n\nPlease generate a scientifically plausible Author Conclusion section for a review of this RCT, following Cochrane guidelines.\n"
}
] |
[
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "**Author Conclusions:** We found no new studies since the last version of this review. Ibuprofen is an effective treatment for acute migraine headaches, providing pain relief in about half of sufferers, but complete relief from pain and associated symptoms for only a minority. NNTs for all efficacy outcomes were better with 400 mg than 200 mg in comparisons with placebo, and soluble formulations provided more rapid relief. Adverse events were mostly mild and transient, occurring at the same rate as with placebo.\n"
}
] |
We found no new studies since the last version of this review. Ibuprofen is an effective treatment for acute migraine headaches, providing pain relief in about half of sufferers, but complete relief from pain and associated symptoms for only a minority. NNTs for all efficacy outcomes were better with 400 mg than 200 mg in comparisons with placebo, and soluble formulations provided more rapid relief. Adverse events were mostly mild and transient, occurring at the same rate as with placebo.
|
CD008039
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "You are an expert medical assistant for biomedical document abstractive summarization. Your task is to generate the **Author Conclusions:** section from Cochrane systematic reviews, given a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) title and its abstract.\n\nThe RCT title will be provided in the **RCT Title:** section, and the abstract will be provided in the **Abstract:** section. You will generate the **Author Conclusions:** section based on the information provided in the abstract, focusing on the implications for practice and research and following Cochrane guidelines.\n\nCochrane review conclusions are structured into implications for practice and implications for research, and must clearly reflect the certainty of evidence (e.g., using GRADE levels), the direction and magnitude of effects, and any limitations such as study heterogeneity or bias. They should be precise and actionable, summarizing whether an intervention likely benefits or harms patients and how confident we are in this judgment. Any uncertainty or evidence gaps should be plainly stated, with clear recommendations for future trials when important questions remain.\n\nUse coherent scientific language, and be as exact and accurate as possible in your conclusions. Avoid unnecessary repetition.\n\n**RCT Title:** Placebo-controlled comparison of effervescent acetylsalicylic acid, sumatriptan and ibuprofen in the treatment of migraine attacks.\n\n**Abstract:** Acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) in combination with metoclopramide has been frequently used in clinical trials in the acute treatment of migraine attacks. Recently the efficacy of a new high buffered formulation of 1000 mg effervescent ASA without metoclopramide compared to placebo has been shown. To further confirm the efficacy of this new formulation in comparison with a triptan and a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (ibuprofen) a three-fold crossover, double-blind, randomized trial with 312 patients was conducted in Germany, Italy and Spain. Effervescent ASA (1000 mg) was compared to encapsulated sumatriptan (50 mg), ibuprofen (400 mg) and placebo. The percentage of patients with reduction in headache severity from moderate or severe to mild or no pain (primary endpoint) was 52.5% for ASA, 60.2% for ibuprofen, 55.8% for sumatriptan and 30.6% for placebo. All active treatments were superior to placebo (P < 0.0001), whereas active treatments were not statistically different. The number of patients who were pain-free at 2 h was 27.1%, 33.2%, 37.1% and 12.6% for those treated with ASA, ibuprofen, sumatriptan or placebo, respectively. The difference between ASA and sumatriptan was statistically significant (P = 0.025). With respect to other secondary efficacy criteria and accompanying symptoms no statistically significant differences between ASA and ibuprofen or sumatriptan were found. Drug-related adverse events were reported in 4.1%, 5.7%, 6.6% and 4.5% of patients treated with ASA, ibuprofen sumatriptan or placebo. This study showed that 1000 mg effervescent ASA is as effective as 50 mg sumatriptan and 400 mg ibuprofen in the treatment of migraine attacks regarding headache relief from moderate/severe to mild/no pain at 2 h. Regarding pain-free at 2 h sumatriptan was most effective.\n\nPlease generate a scientifically plausible Author Conclusion section for a review of this RCT, following Cochrane guidelines.\n"
}
] |
[
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "**Author Conclusions:** We found no new studies since the last version of this review. Ibuprofen is an effective treatment for acute migraine headaches, providing pain relief in about half of sufferers, but complete relief from pain and associated symptoms for only a minority. NNTs for all efficacy outcomes were better with 400 mg than 200 mg in comparisons with placebo, and soluble formulations provided more rapid relief. Adverse events were mostly mild and transient, occurring at the same rate as with placebo.\n"
}
] |
We found no new studies since the last version of this review. Ibuprofen is an effective treatment for acute migraine headaches, providing pain relief in about half of sufferers, but complete relief from pain and associated symptoms for only a minority. NNTs for all efficacy outcomes were better with 400 mg than 200 mg in comparisons with placebo, and soluble formulations provided more rapid relief. Adverse events were mostly mild and transient, occurring at the same rate as with placebo.
|
CD008039
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "You are an expert medical assistant for biomedical document abstractive summarization. Your task is to generate the **Author Conclusions:** section from Cochrane systematic reviews, given a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) title and its abstract.\n\nThe RCT title will be provided in the **RCT Title:** section, and the abstract will be provided in the **Abstract:** section. You will generate the **Author Conclusions:** section based on the information provided in the abstract, focusing on the implications for practice and research and following Cochrane guidelines.\n\nCochrane review conclusions are structured into implications for practice and implications for research, and must clearly reflect the certainty of evidence (e.g., using GRADE levels), the direction and magnitude of effects, and any limitations such as study heterogeneity or bias. They should be precise and actionable, summarizing whether an intervention likely benefits or harms patients and how confident we are in this judgment. Any uncertainty or evidence gaps should be plainly stated, with clear recommendations for future trials when important questions remain.\n\nUse coherent scientific language, and be as exact and accurate as possible in your conclusions. Avoid unnecessary repetition.\n\n**RCT Title:** Rofecoxib in the acute treatment of migraine: a randomized controlled clinical trial.\n\n**Abstract:** To investigate the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of rofecoxib and ibuprofen for acute migraine treatment.\n Rofecoxib was effective and well tolerated in a previous study of treatment of a single migraine attack. We sought to replicate these findings for a single attack and also study the clinical profile of rofecoxib in the acute treatment of multiple migraine attacks. Ibuprofen was included as a reference nonselective NSAID.\n Adult migraineurs (n = 783) treated one migraine attack with either rofecoxib (25 or 50 mg), ibuprofen 400 mg, or placebo in a randomized, double-blind study. Patients could elect to enroll in a 3-month double-blind extension phase.\n In the single-attack phase, headache relief at 2 hours postdose was reported by 59.4%, 62.2%, and 57.7% of patients who took rofecoxib 25 mg, rofecoxib 50 mg, and ibuprofen 400 mg, respectively, versus 30.5% for placebo (all P < .001 vs placebo). The active drugs were statistically superior to placebo on a variety of additional measures. In the extension phase, the mean percentage of patients' attacks with headache relief at 2 hours postdose was 61.8% for rofecoxib 25 mg, 65.4% for rofecoxib 50 mg, and 59.3% for ibuprofen 400 mg. The mean percentage of patients' attacks with 24-hour sustained headache relief was greater for rofecoxib 50 mg (52.0%) than for rofecoxib 25 mg (47.8%, P < .050) or ibuprofen (39.0%, P < .010). In the single-attack phase, the adverse event rate was higher for rofecoxib 50 mg (37.8%) than placebo (27.8%, P < .050); rates were similar to placebo for rofecoxib 25 mg (32.0%, n.s.) and ibuprofen 400 mg (28.1%, n.s.). In the extension phase, treatment groups had similar adverse event rates.\n Rofecoxib 25 and 50 mg and ibuprofen 400 mg were effective and generally well tolerated in the acute treatment of migraine.\n\nPlease generate a scientifically plausible Author Conclusion section for a review of this RCT, following Cochrane guidelines.\n"
}
] |
[
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "**Author Conclusions:** We found no new studies since the last version of this review. Ibuprofen is an effective treatment for acute migraine headaches, providing pain relief in about half of sufferers, but complete relief from pain and associated symptoms for only a minority. NNTs for all efficacy outcomes were better with 400 mg than 200 mg in comparisons with placebo, and soluble formulations provided more rapid relief. Adverse events were mostly mild and transient, occurring at the same rate as with placebo.\n"
}
] |
We found no new studies since the last version of this review. Ibuprofen is an effective treatment for acute migraine headaches, providing pain relief in about half of sufferers, but complete relief from pain and associated symptoms for only a minority. NNTs for all efficacy outcomes were better with 400 mg than 200 mg in comparisons with placebo, and soluble formulations provided more rapid relief. Adverse events were mostly mild and transient, occurring at the same rate as with placebo.
|
CD008039
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "You are an expert medical assistant for biomedical document abstractive summarization. Your task is to generate the **Author Conclusions:** section from Cochrane systematic reviews, given a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) title and its abstract.\n\nThe RCT title will be provided in the **RCT Title:** section, and the abstract will be provided in the **Abstract:** section. You will generate the **Author Conclusions:** section based on the information provided in the abstract, focusing on the implications for practice and research and following Cochrane guidelines.\n\nCochrane review conclusions are structured into implications for practice and implications for research, and must clearly reflect the certainty of evidence (e.g., using GRADE levels), the direction and magnitude of effects, and any limitations such as study heterogeneity or bias. They should be precise and actionable, summarizing whether an intervention likely benefits or harms patients and how confident we are in this judgment. Any uncertainty or evidence gaps should be plainly stated, with clear recommendations for future trials when important questions remain.\n\nUse coherent scientific language, and be as exact and accurate as possible in your conclusions. Avoid unnecessary repetition.\n\n**RCT Title:** Rizatriptan vs. ibuprofen in migraine: a randomised placebo-controlled trial.\n\n**Abstract:** The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of rizatriptan and ibuprofen in migraine. The study was a randomised placebo-controlled trial in a tertiary care teaching hospital. Migraine patients with <8 attacks/months were included. One hundred and fifty-five migraine patients were randomised to rizatriptan 10 mg (53), ibuprofen 400 mg (52) and placebo (50). Efficacy was assessed by headache relief, and headache freedom at 2 h and 24 h. Two-hour headache relief, was noted in 73% in rizatriptan, 53.8% in ibuprofen and 8% in placebo groups. Headache freedom was achieved in 37.7% in rizatriptan, 30.8% in ibuprofen and 2% in placebo groups. Rizatriptan was superior to ibuprofen and placebo in relieving headache at 2 h but not at 24 h. Side effects were noted in 9 patients in rizatriptan, 8 in ibuprofen and 3 in placebo, all of which were nonsignificant. Rizatriptan and ibuprofen are superior to placebo. Rizatriptan is superior to ibuprofen in relieving headache, associated symptoms and functional disability.\n\nPlease generate a scientifically plausible Author Conclusion section for a review of this RCT, following Cochrane guidelines.\n"
}
] |
[
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "**Author Conclusions:** We found no new studies since the last version of this review. Ibuprofen is an effective treatment for acute migraine headaches, providing pain relief in about half of sufferers, but complete relief from pain and associated symptoms for only a minority. NNTs for all efficacy outcomes were better with 400 mg than 200 mg in comparisons with placebo, and soluble formulations provided more rapid relief. Adverse events were mostly mild and transient, occurring at the same rate as with placebo.\n"
}
] |
We found no new studies since the last version of this review. Ibuprofen is an effective treatment for acute migraine headaches, providing pain relief in about half of sufferers, but complete relief from pain and associated symptoms for only a minority. NNTs for all efficacy outcomes were better with 400 mg than 200 mg in comparisons with placebo, and soluble formulations provided more rapid relief. Adverse events were mostly mild and transient, occurring at the same rate as with placebo.
|
CD008039
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "You are an expert medical assistant for biomedical document abstractive summarization. Your task is to generate the **Author Conclusions:** section from Cochrane systematic reviews, given a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) title and its abstract.\n\nThe RCT title will be provided in the **RCT Title:** section, and the abstract will be provided in the **Abstract:** section. You will generate the **Author Conclusions:** section based on the information provided in the abstract, focusing on the implications for practice and research and following Cochrane guidelines.\n\nCochrane review conclusions are structured into implications for practice and implications for research, and must clearly reflect the certainty of evidence (e.g., using GRADE levels), the direction and magnitude of effects, and any limitations such as study heterogeneity or bias. They should be precise and actionable, summarizing whether an intervention likely benefits or harms patients and how confident we are in this judgment. Any uncertainty or evidence gaps should be plainly stated, with clear recommendations for future trials when important questions remain.\n\nUse coherent scientific language, and be as exact and accurate as possible in your conclusions. Avoid unnecessary repetition.\n\n**RCT Title:** Rofecoxib versus ibuprofen for acute treatment of migraine: a randomised placebo controlled trial.\n\n**Abstract:** Rofecoxib is a potent cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitor with a long duration of action. Its role in migraine has not been systematically evaluated.\n To study the efficacy of rofecoxib in migraine.\n In a randomised placebo controlled trial rofecoxib 25 mg, ibuprofen 400 mg, and placebo were compared regarding their efficacy in relieving acute migraine attack. Migraine patients with 2-6 attacks per month were recruited. Headache severity, functional disability, and severity of associated symptoms were graded on a 0-3 scale. The primary endpoint was pain relief at two hours. Relief of associated symptoms and sustained pain relief for 24 hours were also noted.\n One hundred and twenty four patients were randomised into rofecoxib (42), ibuprofen (40), and placebo (42) groups. One hundred and one patients were followed up: 33 on rofecoxib, 35 ibuprofen, and 33 placebo. Patients' ages ranged from 16-62 (mean 31.4) years, and 83 were females. Pain relief at two hours was noted in 45.5% on rofecoxib, 55.6% on ibuprofen, and 9.1% in the placebo group. The associated symptoms at two hours were reduced in 39.4% on rofecoxib, 50% on ibuprofen, and 9.1% in the placebo group. Sustained 24 hour pain relief was noted in 36.4% on rofecoxib, 41% on ibuprofen, and 6.1% in the placebo group. In the ibuprofen group, five patients had abdominal pain but there were no side effects in those on rofecoxib or in the control group. Both rofecoxib and ibuprofen were significantly effective in relieving pain, associated symptoms at two hours, and in sustained pain relief. There was no significant difference between rofecoxib and ibuprofen in aborting acute migraine attacks.\n Both ibuprofen and rofecoxib were superior to placebo in aborting an acute migraine attack, and there was no significant difference in their efficacy in an acute migraine attack.\n\nPlease generate a scientifically plausible Author Conclusion section for a review of this RCT, following Cochrane guidelines.\n"
}
] |
[
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "**Author Conclusions:** We found no new studies since the last version of this review. Ibuprofen is an effective treatment for acute migraine headaches, providing pain relief in about half of sufferers, but complete relief from pain and associated symptoms for only a minority. NNTs for all efficacy outcomes were better with 400 mg than 200 mg in comparisons with placebo, and soluble formulations provided more rapid relief. Adverse events were mostly mild and transient, occurring at the same rate as with placebo.\n"
}
] |
We found no new studies since the last version of this review. Ibuprofen is an effective treatment for acute migraine headaches, providing pain relief in about half of sufferers, but complete relief from pain and associated symptoms for only a minority. NNTs for all efficacy outcomes were better with 400 mg than 200 mg in comparisons with placebo, and soluble formulations provided more rapid relief. Adverse events were mostly mild and transient, occurring at the same rate as with placebo.
|
CD008039
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "You are an expert medical assistant for biomedical document abstractive summarization. Your task is to generate the **Author Conclusions:** section from Cochrane systematic reviews, given a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) title and its abstract.\n\nThe RCT title will be provided in the **RCT Title:** section, and the abstract will be provided in the **Abstract:** section. You will generate the **Author Conclusions:** section based on the information provided in the abstract, focusing on the implications for practice and research and following Cochrane guidelines.\n\nCochrane review conclusions are structured into implications for practice and implications for research, and must clearly reflect the certainty of evidence (e.g., using GRADE levels), the direction and magnitude of effects, and any limitations such as study heterogeneity or bias. They should be precise and actionable, summarizing whether an intervention likely benefits or harms patients and how confident we are in this judgment. Any uncertainty or evidence gaps should be plainly stated, with clear recommendations for future trials when important questions remain.\n\nUse coherent scientific language, and be as exact and accurate as possible in your conclusions. Avoid unnecessary repetition.\n\n**RCT Title:** Acetaminophen, aspirin, and caffeine in combination versus ibuprofen for acute migraine: results from a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, single-dose, placebo-controlled study.\n\n**Abstract:** Compare the effectiveness of a combination analgesic containing acetaminophen, aspirin, and caffeine to that of ibuprofen in the treatment of migraine.\n Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, single-dose study. A total of 1555 migraineurs were included in the analysis. No patients were excluded solely because of severity of symptoms or degree of disability. A single 2-tablet dose for each of the 3 treatment groups: a combination product containing acetaminophen 250 mg, aspirin 250 mg, and caffeine 65 mg per tablet (AAC); ibuprofen 200 mg per tablet (IB); or matching placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was the weighted sum of pain relief (PAR) scores at 2 hours postdose (TOTPAR2) and an important secondary endpoint was the time to onset of meaningful relief.\n There were 669 patients in the AAC group, 666 patients in the IB group, and 220 patients in the placebo group. The 3 treatment groups had similar demographic profiles, migraine histories, and baseline symptom profiles. While both active treatments were significantly better than placebo in relieving the pain and associated symptoms of migraine, AAC was superior to IB for TOTPAR2, as well as for PAR, time to onset of meaningful PAR, pain intensity reduction, headache response, and pain free. The mean TOTPAR2 scores for AAC, IB, and placebo were 2.7, 2.4, and 2.0, respectively (AAC vs. IB, P < .03). The median time to meaningful PAR for AAC was 20 minutes earlier than that of IB (P < .036).\n AAC and IB are safe, cost-effective treatments for migraine; AAC provides significantly superior efficacy and speed of onset compared with IB.\n\nPlease generate a scientifically plausible Author Conclusion section for a review of this RCT, following Cochrane guidelines.\n"
}
] |
[
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "**Author Conclusions:** We found no new studies since the last version of this review. Ibuprofen is an effective treatment for acute migraine headaches, providing pain relief in about half of sufferers, but complete relief from pain and associated symptoms for only a minority. NNTs for all efficacy outcomes were better with 400 mg than 200 mg in comparisons with placebo, and soluble formulations provided more rapid relief. Adverse events were mostly mild and transient, occurring at the same rate as with placebo.\n"
}
] |
We found no new studies since the last version of this review. Ibuprofen is an effective treatment for acute migraine headaches, providing pain relief in about half of sufferers, but complete relief from pain and associated symptoms for only a minority. NNTs for all efficacy outcomes were better with 400 mg than 200 mg in comparisons with placebo, and soluble formulations provided more rapid relief. Adverse events were mostly mild and transient, occurring at the same rate as with placebo.
|
CD008039
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "You are an expert medical assistant for biomedical document abstractive summarization. Your task is to generate the **Author Conclusions:** section from Cochrane systematic reviews, given a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) title and its abstract.\n\nThe RCT title will be provided in the **RCT Title:** section, and the abstract will be provided in the **Abstract:** section. You will generate the **Author Conclusions:** section based on the information provided in the abstract, focusing on the implications for practice and research and following Cochrane guidelines.\n\nCochrane review conclusions are structured into implications for practice and implications for research, and must clearly reflect the certainty of evidence (e.g., using GRADE levels), the direction and magnitude of effects, and any limitations such as study heterogeneity or bias. They should be precise and actionable, summarizing whether an intervention likely benefits or harms patients and how confident we are in this judgment. Any uncertainty or evidence gaps should be plainly stated, with clear recommendations for future trials when important questions remain.\n\nUse coherent scientific language, and be as exact and accurate as possible in your conclusions. Avoid unnecessary repetition.\n\n**RCT Title:** The efficacy of metoclopramide in the treatment of migraine headache.\n\n**Abstract:** By evaluating the efficacy of metoclopramide alone and in combination with ibuprofen versus placebos, this study was designed to both evaluate the efficacy of metoclopramide and elucidate its mechanism of action in the treatment of migraine headache.\n The study was conducted over a two-year period and was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.\n An urban teaching hospital.\n Patients enrolled were at least 18 years old and had recurring headaches with one or more of the following characteristics: unilateral, preceded by neurologic symptoms, significant nausea and vomiting, or mood changes and photophobia.\n Ten milligrams of metoclopramide or an equal volume of IV normal saline was given and 600 mg of ibuprofen or identical-appearing placebo was given orally at time 0. Patients rated their pain and nausea at time 0, 30 minutes, and 60 minutes using visual-analog scales.\n The differences in pain and nausea scores for the metoclopramide + placebos group versus the other three groups were tested using exact nonparametric (Mann-Whitney) statistical procedures. The metoclopramide + placebos group had significantly better relief of pain compared with the placebos + ibuprofen and placebos + placebos groups. The metoclopramide + placebos group had significantly better relief of nausea than the ibuprofen + placebos group; nausea scores for the placebos + placebos group could not be analyzed due to excessive variance from the other groups at baseline. The differences between the metoclopramide + placebos group and the metoclopramide + ibuprofen group were not statistically significant with regard to either pain or nausea.\n Metoclopramide is efficacious in the treatment of both the pain and nausea of migraine headache. This is a direct action that is not dependent on the concomitant administration of another agent.\n\nPlease generate a scientifically plausible Author Conclusion section for a review of this RCT, following Cochrane guidelines.\n"
}
] |
[
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "**Author Conclusions:** We found no new studies since the last version of this review. Ibuprofen is an effective treatment for acute migraine headaches, providing pain relief in about half of sufferers, but complete relief from pain and associated symptoms for only a minority. NNTs for all efficacy outcomes were better with 400 mg than 200 mg in comparisons with placebo, and soluble formulations provided more rapid relief. Adverse events were mostly mild and transient, occurring at the same rate as with placebo.\n"
}
] |
We found no new studies since the last version of this review. Ibuprofen is an effective treatment for acute migraine headaches, providing pain relief in about half of sufferers, but complete relief from pain and associated symptoms for only a minority. NNTs for all efficacy outcomes were better with 400 mg than 200 mg in comparisons with placebo, and soluble formulations provided more rapid relief. Adverse events were mostly mild and transient, occurring at the same rate as with placebo.
|
CD008039
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "You are an expert medical assistant for biomedical document abstractive summarization. Your task is to generate the **Author Conclusions:** section from Cochrane systematic reviews, given a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) title and its abstract.\n\nThe RCT title will be provided in the **RCT Title:** section, and the abstract will be provided in the **Abstract:** section. You will generate the **Author Conclusions:** section based on the information provided in the abstract, focusing on the implications for practice and research and following Cochrane guidelines.\n\nCochrane review conclusions are structured into implications for practice and implications for research, and must clearly reflect the certainty of evidence (e.g., using GRADE levels), the direction and magnitude of effects, and any limitations such as study heterogeneity or bias. They should be precise and actionable, summarizing whether an intervention likely benefits or harms patients and how confident we are in this judgment. Any uncertainty or evidence gaps should be plainly stated, with clear recommendations for future trials when important questions remain.\n\nUse coherent scientific language, and be as exact and accurate as possible in your conclusions. Avoid unnecessary repetition.\n\n**RCT Title:** Effectiveness of ibuprofen-arginine in the treatment of acute migraine attacks.\n\n**Abstract:** The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a new formulation of ibuprofen (ibuprofen-arginine [IA]) in the treatment of migraine attacks. This is a faster absorbed formulation as compared with ibuprofen alone. The rapidity of action is considered to be a crucial factor in the treatment of migraine attacks. Forty migraine patients participated in this multicenter, double-blind, crossover, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Each patient was treated with a single oral dose of IA 400 mg or placebo during two consecutive migraine attacks. The results confirm the efficacy of IA, with a significant (p < 0.05) improvement in pain relief at 30 min after treatment. A statistically significant (p < 0.001) reduction in pain intensity was observed at 1, 2, 4 and 6 h after treatment with ibuprofen as compared with placebo. IA was well tolerated and our data indicate that this new formulation of ibuprofen is valuable in the treatment of acute migraine attacks.\n\nPlease generate a scientifically plausible Author Conclusion section for a review of this RCT, following Cochrane guidelines.\n"
}
] |
[
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "**Author Conclusions:** We found no new studies since the last version of this review. Ibuprofen is an effective treatment for acute migraine headaches, providing pain relief in about half of sufferers, but complete relief from pain and associated symptoms for only a minority. NNTs for all efficacy outcomes were better with 400 mg than 200 mg in comparisons with placebo, and soluble formulations provided more rapid relief. Adverse events were mostly mild and transient, occurring at the same rate as with placebo.\n"
}
] |
We found no new studies since the last version of this review. Ibuprofen is an effective treatment for acute migraine headaches, providing pain relief in about half of sufferers, but complete relief from pain and associated symptoms for only a minority. NNTs for all efficacy outcomes were better with 400 mg than 200 mg in comparisons with placebo, and soluble formulations provided more rapid relief. Adverse events were mostly mild and transient, occurring at the same rate as with placebo.
|
CD003287
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "You are an expert medical assistant for biomedical document abstractive summarization. Your task is to generate the **Author Conclusions:** section from Cochrane systematic reviews, given a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) title and its abstract.\n\nThe RCT title will be provided in the **RCT Title:** section, and the abstract will be provided in the **Abstract:** section. You will generate the **Author Conclusions:** section based on the information provided in the abstract, focusing on the implications for practice and research and following Cochrane guidelines.\n\nCochrane review conclusions are structured into implications for practice and implications for research, and must clearly reflect the certainty of evidence (e.g., using GRADE levels), the direction and magnitude of effects, and any limitations such as study heterogeneity or bias. They should be precise and actionable, summarizing whether an intervention likely benefits or harms patients and how confident we are in this judgment. Any uncertainty or evidence gaps should be plainly stated, with clear recommendations for future trials when important questions remain.\n\nUse coherent scientific language, and be as exact and accurate as possible in your conclusions. Avoid unnecessary repetition.\n\n**RCT Title:** Effect of the fast-acting insulin analog lispro on the risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia during intensified insulin therapy. U.K. Lispro Study Group.\n\n**Abstract:** To measure the effectiveness of insulin lispro, a fast-acting insulin analog, in reducing hypoglycemic episodes when used in a basal bolus regimen by patients with type 1 diabetes using intensive insulin therapy.\n In 11 diabetes outpatient clinics in the U.K., 165 subjects with type 1 diabetes were enrolled in a randomized crossover open-label study with a 2-month run-in period and then treated with a basal bolus regimen. Patients used human NPH insulin at night with either premeal insulin lispro for 4 months followed by human regular insulin for another 4 months or human regular insulin for 4 months followed by insulin lispro for another 4 months. The main outcome measures were the number of hypoglycemic episodes during both treatments and HbA1c level.\n A total of 135 patients were randomized, with 68 receiving insulin lispro and 67 receiving human regular insulin for the first 4 months. The data for the first 4 months of treatment only were compared as two independent groups because of a period effect and a treatment-period interaction. Glycemic control was equally tight during treatment with human regular insulin (HbA1c, 6.2 +/- 0.8%) and insulin lispro (6.0 +/- 0.9%). A total of 1,156 hypoglycemic episodes occurred during treatment with human regular insulin compared with 775 hypoglycemic episodes that occurred during treatment with insulin lispro (P = 0.04). This difference was chiefly because of a reduced number of nocturnal episodes (181 vs. 52, P = 0.001) in the insulin lispro group.\n The use of a fast-acting insulin analog, insulin lispro, as part of a basal bolus regimen reduces nocturnal hypoglycemia in patients with type 1 diabetes who maintain tight glycemic control during intensive insulin therapy.\n\nPlease generate a scientifically plausible Author Conclusion section for a review of this RCT, following Cochrane guidelines.\n"
}
] |
[
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "**Author Conclusions:** Our analysis suggests only a minor benefit of short acting insulin analogues in the majority of diabetic patients treated with insulin. Until long term efficacy and safety data are available we suggest a cautious response to the vigorous promotion of insulin analogues. For safety purposes, we need a long-term follow-up of large numbers of patients and well designed studies in pregnant women to determine the safety profile for both the mother and the unborn child.\n"
}
] |
Our analysis suggests only a minor benefit of short acting insulin analogues in the majority of diabetic patients treated with insulin. Until long term efficacy and safety data are available we suggest a cautious response to the vigorous promotion of insulin analogues. For safety purposes, we need a long-term follow-up of large numbers of patients and well designed studies in pregnant women to determine the safety profile for both the mother and the unborn child.
|
CD003287
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "You are an expert medical assistant for biomedical document abstractive summarization. Your task is to generate the **Author Conclusions:** section from Cochrane systematic reviews, given a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) title and its abstract.\n\nThe RCT title will be provided in the **RCT Title:** section, and the abstract will be provided in the **Abstract:** section. You will generate the **Author Conclusions:** section based on the information provided in the abstract, focusing on the implications for practice and research and following Cochrane guidelines.\n\nCochrane review conclusions are structured into implications for practice and implications for research, and must clearly reflect the certainty of evidence (e.g., using GRADE levels), the direction and magnitude of effects, and any limitations such as study heterogeneity or bias. They should be precise and actionable, summarizing whether an intervention likely benefits or harms patients and how confident we are in this judgment. Any uncertainty or evidence gaps should be plainly stated, with clear recommendations for future trials when important questions remain.\n\nUse coherent scientific language, and be as exact and accurate as possible in your conclusions. Avoid unnecessary repetition.\n\n**RCT Title:** Severe hypoglycaemia in patients with type 1 diabetes and impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia: a comparative study of insulin lispro and regular human insulin.\n\n**Abstract:** To assess the potential of insulin lispro to limit the frequency of severe hypoglycaemia without compromising glycaemic control in a cohort of patients with type 1 diabetes who are at a high risk of severe hypoglycemia. Research design and methods An open-label, randomised, 12-month comparative crossover study of insulin lispro and regular human insulin was performed in 33 patients with type 1 diabetes with impaired hypoglycaemia awareness. The efficacy of each treatment was evaluated by glycaemic control (HbA(1c)), eight-point home blood glucose profiles, and the frequency and severity of hypoglycaemic episodes and quality of life.\n Eighteen (55%) patients experienced one or more episodes of severe hypoglycaemia in the 48 weeks of study. There was a trend to a lower incidence of severe hypoglycaemia during treatment with insulin lispro in comparison with regular human insulin (55 vs 84 episodes, p=0.087). This resulted principally from a 47% lower incidence of nocturnal severe hypoglycaemia with insulin lispro (25 vs 47 episodes, p=0.11). The lower frequency of severe hypoglycaemia associated with insulin lispro was not explained by differences in glycated haemoglobin between insulin treatments (HbA(1c) 9.1% insulin lispro vs 9.3% regular human insulin).\n In individuals with type 1 diabetes, who have impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia, treatment with insulin lispro may be associated with a lower incidence of severe hypoglycaemia manifested predominantly through less frequent nocturnal episodes. Insulin lispro may have a beneficial role in the management of patients with diabetes at risk of severe hypoglycaemia, although a larger study is required to confirm these findings.\n Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.\n\nPlease generate a scientifically plausible Author Conclusion section for a review of this RCT, following Cochrane guidelines.\n"
}
] |
[
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "**Author Conclusions:** Our analysis suggests only a minor benefit of short acting insulin analogues in the majority of diabetic patients treated with insulin. Until long term efficacy and safety data are available we suggest a cautious response to the vigorous promotion of insulin analogues. For safety purposes, we need a long-term follow-up of large numbers of patients and well designed studies in pregnant women to determine the safety profile for both the mother and the unborn child.\n"
}
] |
Our analysis suggests only a minor benefit of short acting insulin analogues in the majority of diabetic patients treated with insulin. Until long term efficacy and safety data are available we suggest a cautious response to the vigorous promotion of insulin analogues. For safety purposes, we need a long-term follow-up of large numbers of patients and well designed studies in pregnant women to determine the safety profile for both the mother and the unborn child.
|
CD003287
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "You are an expert medical assistant for biomedical document abstractive summarization. Your task is to generate the **Author Conclusions:** section from Cochrane systematic reviews, given a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) title and its abstract.\n\nThe RCT title will be provided in the **RCT Title:** section, and the abstract will be provided in the **Abstract:** section. You will generate the **Author Conclusions:** section based on the information provided in the abstract, focusing on the implications for practice and research and following Cochrane guidelines.\n\nCochrane review conclusions are structured into implications for practice and implications for research, and must clearly reflect the certainty of evidence (e.g., using GRADE levels), the direction and magnitude of effects, and any limitations such as study heterogeneity or bias. They should be precise and actionable, summarizing whether an intervention likely benefits or harms patients and how confident we are in this judgment. Any uncertainty or evidence gaps should be plainly stated, with clear recommendations for future trials when important questions remain.\n\nUse coherent scientific language, and be as exact and accurate as possible in your conclusions. Avoid unnecessary repetition.\n\n**RCT Title:** Insulin lispro is as effective as regular insulin in optimising metabolic control and preserving beta-cell function at onset of type 1 diabetes mellitus.\n\n**Abstract:** The aim of the study was to examine the effects of intensive insulin therapy using lispro on metabolic control, immunogenicity and beta-cell function of newly diagnosed type 1 diabetic subjects in comparison with intensive insulin therapy using regular insulin. An open study was conducted in 45 newly diagnosed type 1 diabetic subjects. Patients were randomly assigned to intensive insulin therapy using insulin lispro (lispro) (lispro, n=22; 22.8 years) or intensive insulin therapy using regular insulin (regular) (regular, n=23; 24.4 years): three to five injections of subcutaneous rapid-acting insulin before meals and Neutral Protamine Hagedorn (NPH) before dinner/bed-time. GAD, IA2, insulin antibodies, basal and stimulated plasma C-peptide and HbA(1c) were measured initially and at months 1, 4, 8 and 12. Daily blood glucose profiles tended to be lower in the lispro group, particularly values after breakfast, without reaching statistical significance. There were no differences in terms of HbA(1c) throughout the study. The proportion of subjects achieving an HbA(1c)<6% at the end of the study was similar in both groups (regular 73.9%, lispro 68.0%). The number of mild hypoglycemic episodes tended to be lower with lispro, but not significantly. beta-Cell function was not significantly different in both groups. During follow-up there were no differences in antibodies, including IAAb. In summary, insulin lispro used in intensive insulin therapy is as effective as regular insulin in optimizing metabolic control and preserving beta-cell function at diagnosis of type 1 diabetes.\n\nPlease generate a scientifically plausible Author Conclusion section for a review of this RCT, following Cochrane guidelines.\n"
}
] |
[
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "**Author Conclusions:** Our analysis suggests only a minor benefit of short acting insulin analogues in the majority of diabetic patients treated with insulin. Until long term efficacy and safety data are available we suggest a cautious response to the vigorous promotion of insulin analogues. For safety purposes, we need a long-term follow-up of large numbers of patients and well designed studies in pregnant women to determine the safety profile for both the mother and the unborn child.\n"
}
] |
Our analysis suggests only a minor benefit of short acting insulin analogues in the majority of diabetic patients treated with insulin. Until long term efficacy and safety data are available we suggest a cautious response to the vigorous promotion of insulin analogues. For safety purposes, we need a long-term follow-up of large numbers of patients and well designed studies in pregnant women to determine the safety profile for both the mother and the unborn child.
|
CD003287
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "You are an expert medical assistant for biomedical document abstractive summarization. Your task is to generate the **Author Conclusions:** section from Cochrane systematic reviews, given a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) title and its abstract.\n\nThe RCT title will be provided in the **RCT Title:** section, and the abstract will be provided in the **Abstract:** section. You will generate the **Author Conclusions:** section based on the information provided in the abstract, focusing on the implications for practice and research and following Cochrane guidelines.\n\nCochrane review conclusions are structured into implications for practice and implications for research, and must clearly reflect the certainty of evidence (e.g., using GRADE levels), the direction and magnitude of effects, and any limitations such as study heterogeneity or bias. They should be precise and actionable, summarizing whether an intervention likely benefits or harms patients and how confident we are in this judgment. Any uncertainty or evidence gaps should be plainly stated, with clear recommendations for future trials when important questions remain.\n\nUse coherent scientific language, and be as exact and accurate as possible in your conclusions. Avoid unnecessary repetition.\n\n**RCT Title:** Improved postprandial glycemic control during treatment with Humalog Mix25, a novel protamine-based insulin lispro formulation. Humalog Mix25 Study Group.\n\n**Abstract:** Humalog Mix25 is a manufactured premixed insulin formulation containing insulin lispro and a novel insulin lispro-protamine formulation (NPL) in a ratio of 25:75%. The objective of this study was to compare Humalog Mix25 to human insulin 30/70 (30% regular insulin/70% NPH) with respect to glycemic control.\n Humalog Mix25 was compared with human insulin 30/70 in 89 individuals with type 2 diabetes during a 6-month randomized open-label two-period crossover study. Each insulin was administered twice daily, before the morning and evening meals. Information regarding self-monitored blood glucose (BG), hypoglycemic episodes (hypoglycemic signs or symptoms or BG < or = 3.0 mmol/l), insulin dose, and HbA1c was collected.\n Treatment with Humalog Mix25 resulted in better postprandial glycemic control after the morning and evening meals compared with treatment with human insulin 30/70. Overall glycemic control and the incidence of hypoglycemia were comparable between the treatments.\n In comparison to treatment with human insulin 30/70, twice daily administration of Humalog Mix25 resulted in improved postprandial glycemic control, similar overall glycemic control, and the convenience of dosing immediately before meals.\n\nPlease generate a scientifically plausible Author Conclusion section for a review of this RCT, following Cochrane guidelines.\n"
}
] |
[
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "**Author Conclusions:** Our analysis suggests only a minor benefit of short acting insulin analogues in the majority of diabetic patients treated with insulin. Until long term efficacy and safety data are available we suggest a cautious response to the vigorous promotion of insulin analogues. For safety purposes, we need a long-term follow-up of large numbers of patients and well designed studies in pregnant women to determine the safety profile for both the mother and the unborn child.\n"
}
] |
Our analysis suggests only a minor benefit of short acting insulin analogues in the majority of diabetic patients treated with insulin. Until long term efficacy and safety data are available we suggest a cautious response to the vigorous promotion of insulin analogues. For safety purposes, we need a long-term follow-up of large numbers of patients and well designed studies in pregnant women to determine the safety profile for both the mother and the unborn child.
|
CD003287
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "You are an expert medical assistant for biomedical document abstractive summarization. Your task is to generate the **Author Conclusions:** section from Cochrane systematic reviews, given a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) title and its abstract.\n\nThe RCT title will be provided in the **RCT Title:** section, and the abstract will be provided in the **Abstract:** section. You will generate the **Author Conclusions:** section based on the information provided in the abstract, focusing on the implications for practice and research and following Cochrane guidelines.\n\nCochrane review conclusions are structured into implications for practice and implications for research, and must clearly reflect the certainty of evidence (e.g., using GRADE levels), the direction and magnitude of effects, and any limitations such as study heterogeneity or bias. They should be precise and actionable, summarizing whether an intervention likely benefits or harms patients and how confident we are in this judgment. Any uncertainty or evidence gaps should be plainly stated, with clear recommendations for future trials when important questions remain.\n\nUse coherent scientific language, and be as exact and accurate as possible in your conclusions. Avoid unnecessary repetition.\n\n**RCT Title:** Improved postprandial blood glucose control and reduced nocturnal hypoglycemia during treatment with two novel insulin lispro-protamine formulations, insulin lispro mix25 and insulin lispro mix50. Mix50 Study Group.\n\n**Abstract:** The objective of this 6-month, open-label, randomized, two-period crossover study was to compare glycemic control when patients were treated with (1) 2 manufactured premixed insulin formulations containing insulin lispro and a novel insulin lispro-protamine formulation, neutral protamine lispro (NPL), and (2) 2 manufactured premixed human insulin formulations, human insulin 50/50 and human insulin 30/70. One hundred individuals, 37 with type 1 diabetes mellitus (12 females, 25 males; mean age, 39.4 years; mean body mass index [BMI], 24.8; mean duration of diabetes, 12.9 years) and 63 with type 2 diabetes mellitus (33 females, 30 males; mean age, 59.0 years; mean BMI, 28.4; mean duration of diabetes, 12.6 years), were treated with insulin lispro mixtures. Insulin lispro Mix50 (50% insulin lispro/50% NPL) and human insulin 50/50 (50% regular insulin/50% neutral protamine Hagedorn [NPH] insulin) were administered before breakfast; insulin lispro Mix25 (25% insulin lispro/75% NPL) and human insulin 30/70 (30% regular insulin/70% NPH) were administered before dinner. Blood glucose (BG), hypoglycemic episodes (hypoglycemic signs or symptoms or BG <3.0 mmol/L), insulin dose and timing of dose before meals, and hemoglobin A1c were measured. Mean doses of insulin lispro and human insulin mixtures were similar overall and for both diabetes subgroups. However, compared with human insulin mixtures, twice-daily administration of insulin lispro mixtures resulted in improved postprandial glycemic control, similar overall glycemic control, and less nocturnal hypoglycemia, as well as offering the convenience of dosing closer to meals.\n\nPlease generate a scientifically plausible Author Conclusion section for a review of this RCT, following Cochrane guidelines.\n"
}
] |
[
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "**Author Conclusions:** Our analysis suggests only a minor benefit of short acting insulin analogues in the majority of diabetic patients treated with insulin. Until long term efficacy and safety data are available we suggest a cautious response to the vigorous promotion of insulin analogues. For safety purposes, we need a long-term follow-up of large numbers of patients and well designed studies in pregnant women to determine the safety profile for both the mother and the unborn child.\n"
}
] |
Our analysis suggests only a minor benefit of short acting insulin analogues in the majority of diabetic patients treated with insulin. Until long term efficacy and safety data are available we suggest a cautious response to the vigorous promotion of insulin analogues. For safety purposes, we need a long-term follow-up of large numbers of patients and well designed studies in pregnant women to determine the safety profile for both the mother and the unborn child.
|
CD003287
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "You are an expert medical assistant for biomedical document abstractive summarization. Your task is to generate the **Author Conclusions:** section from Cochrane systematic reviews, given a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) title and its abstract.\n\nThe RCT title will be provided in the **RCT Title:** section, and the abstract will be provided in the **Abstract:** section. You will generate the **Author Conclusions:** section based on the information provided in the abstract, focusing on the implications for practice and research and following Cochrane guidelines.\n\nCochrane review conclusions are structured into implications for practice and implications for research, and must clearly reflect the certainty of evidence (e.g., using GRADE levels), the direction and magnitude of effects, and any limitations such as study heterogeneity or bias. They should be precise and actionable, summarizing whether an intervention likely benefits or harms patients and how confident we are in this judgment. Any uncertainty or evidence gaps should be plainly stated, with clear recommendations for future trials when important questions remain.\n\nUse coherent scientific language, and be as exact and accurate as possible in your conclusions. Avoid unnecessary repetition.\n\n**RCT Title:** Comparison of insulin lispro with regular human insulin for the treatment of type 1 diabetes in adolescents.\n\n**Abstract:** Although insulin lispro (insulin LP) has been shown to improve postprandial blood glucose (BG) control and reduce hypoglycemic episodes in adult patients with type I diabetes, there appear to have been few clinical studies focusing on its use in adolescents.\n This study compared the effects of insulin LP with those of regular human insulin (insulin R) on postprandial BG control and hypoglycemia in adolescents with type diabetes.\n In this crossover, open-label study, adolescents between the ages of 9 and 18 years who had reached Tanner stage II puberty were randomized to receive either insulin LP immediately before meals or insulin R 30 to 45 minutes before meals, in addition to daily intermediate-acting insulin. After 4 months, patients were switched to the alternate treatment sequence. Eight-point BG profiles, hypoglycemia rate, and glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) were measured at baseline and end point.\n Four hundred eighty-one adolescents participated in the study at 53 investigative sites in 15 countries; 463 were randomized to treatment (228 insulin LP, 235 insulin R), and 457 completed the study. Insulin LP given before breakfast resulted in significantly lower mean (+/-SD) 2-hour postprandial BG levels compared with insulin R (9.7 +/- 4.0 mmol/L vs 10.6 +/- 4.3 mmol/L, respectively; P < 0.001). Insulin LP given before dinner resulted in significantly lower 2-hour postprandial BG levels compared with insulin R (8.6 +/- 3.5 mmol/L vs 9.3 +/- 3.7 mmol/L; P = 0.003). No differences were seen between treatments in 2-hour postprandial BG levels after the midday meal. Mean baseline HbA1c values were similar between sequence groups, and no between-group difference in HbA1c was observed at end point (insulin LP, 8.69% +/- 1.52%; insulin R, 8.70% +/- 1.65%). Treatment with insulin LP resulted in a significantly lower incidence of hypoglycemic episodes per patient per 30 days compared with insulin R (4.02 +/- 4.5 vs 4.37 +/- 4.5, respectively; P = 0.023) and significantly fewer hypoglycemic episodes between midnight and 6 AM (1.0 +/- 1.9 vs 1.7 +/- 2.6; P < 0.001).\n In adolescents with type 1 diabetes, insulin LP significantly improved postprandial glycemic control and reduced episodes of nocturnal hypoglycemia compared with insulin R. Insulin LP was well tolerated and effective as part of an intensified insulin regimen in this study population.\n\nPlease generate a scientifically plausible Author Conclusion section for a review of this RCT, following Cochrane guidelines.\n"
}
] |
[
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "**Author Conclusions:** Our analysis suggests only a minor benefit of short acting insulin analogues in the majority of diabetic patients treated with insulin. Until long term efficacy and safety data are available we suggest a cautious response to the vigorous promotion of insulin analogues. For safety purposes, we need a long-term follow-up of large numbers of patients and well designed studies in pregnant women to determine the safety profile for both the mother and the unborn child.\n"
}
] |
Our analysis suggests only a minor benefit of short acting insulin analogues in the majority of diabetic patients treated with insulin. Until long term efficacy and safety data are available we suggest a cautious response to the vigorous promotion of insulin analogues. For safety purposes, we need a long-term follow-up of large numbers of patients and well designed studies in pregnant women to determine the safety profile for both the mother and the unborn child.
|
CD003287
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "You are an expert medical assistant for biomedical document abstractive summarization. Your task is to generate the **Author Conclusions:** section from Cochrane systematic reviews, given a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) title and its abstract.\n\nThe RCT title will be provided in the **RCT Title:** section, and the abstract will be provided in the **Abstract:** section. You will generate the **Author Conclusions:** section based on the information provided in the abstract, focusing on the implications for practice and research and following Cochrane guidelines.\n\nCochrane review conclusions are structured into implications for practice and implications for research, and must clearly reflect the certainty of evidence (e.g., using GRADE levels), the direction and magnitude of effects, and any limitations such as study heterogeneity or bias. They should be precise and actionable, summarizing whether an intervention likely benefits or harms patients and how confident we are in this judgment. Any uncertainty or evidence gaps should be plainly stated, with clear recommendations for future trials when important questions remain.\n\nUse coherent scientific language, and be as exact and accurate as possible in your conclusions. Avoid unnecessary repetition.\n\n**RCT Title:** Use of insulin aspart, a fast-acting insulin analog, as the mealtime insulin in the management of patients with type 1 diabetes.\n\n**Abstract:** To compare long-term glycemic control and safety of using insulin aspart (IAsp) with that of regular human insulin (HI).\n This was a multicenter randomized open-label 6-month study (882 subjects) with a 6-month extension period (714 subjects) that enrolled subjects with type 1 diabetes. Subjects administered IAsp immediately before meals or regular HI 30 min before meals; basal NPH insulin was taken as a single bedtime dose in the majority of subjects. Glycemic control was assessed with HbA1c values and 8-point blood glucose profiles at 3-month intervals.\n Mean postprandial blood glucose levels (mg/dl +/- SEM) were significantly lower for subjects in the IAsp group compared with subjects in the HI group after breakfast (156 +/- 3.4 vs. 185 +/- 4.7), lunch (137 +/- 3.1 vs. 162 +/- 4.1), and dinner (153 +/- 3.1 vs. 168 +/- 4.1), when assessed after 6 months of treatment. Mean HbA1c values (% +/- SEM) were slightly, but significantly, lower for the IAsp group (7.78% +/- 0.03) than for the regular HI group (7.93% +/- 0.05, P = 0.005) at 6 months. Similar postprandial blood glucose and HbA1c values were observed at 12 months. Adverse events and overall hypoglycemic episodes were similar for both treatment groups.\n Postprandial glycemic control was significantly better with IAsp compared with HI after 6 and 12 months of treatment. The improvement was not obtained at an increased risk of hypoglycemia. HbA1c was slightly, but significantly, lower for IAsp compared with HI at 6 and 12 months.\n\nPlease generate a scientifically plausible Author Conclusion section for a review of this RCT, following Cochrane guidelines.\n"
}
] |
[
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "**Author Conclusions:** Our analysis suggests only a minor benefit of short acting insulin analogues in the majority of diabetic patients treated with insulin. Until long term efficacy and safety data are available we suggest a cautious response to the vigorous promotion of insulin analogues. For safety purposes, we need a long-term follow-up of large numbers of patients and well designed studies in pregnant women to determine the safety profile for both the mother and the unborn child.\n"
}
] |
Our analysis suggests only a minor benefit of short acting insulin analogues in the majority of diabetic patients treated with insulin. Until long term efficacy and safety data are available we suggest a cautious response to the vigorous promotion of insulin analogues. For safety purposes, we need a long-term follow-up of large numbers of patients and well designed studies in pregnant women to determine the safety profile for both the mother and the unborn child.
|
CD003287
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "You are an expert medical assistant for biomedical document abstractive summarization. Your task is to generate the **Author Conclusions:** section from Cochrane systematic reviews, given a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) title and its abstract.\n\nThe RCT title will be provided in the **RCT Title:** section, and the abstract will be provided in the **Abstract:** section. You will generate the **Author Conclusions:** section based on the information provided in the abstract, focusing on the implications for practice and research and following Cochrane guidelines.\n\nCochrane review conclusions are structured into implications for practice and implications for research, and must clearly reflect the certainty of evidence (e.g., using GRADE levels), the direction and magnitude of effects, and any limitations such as study heterogeneity or bias. They should be precise and actionable, summarizing whether an intervention likely benefits or harms patients and how confident we are in this judgment. Any uncertainty or evidence gaps should be plainly stated, with clear recommendations for future trials when important questions remain.\n\nUse coherent scientific language, and be as exact and accurate as possible in your conclusions. Avoid unnecessary repetition.\n\n**RCT Title:** A comparison of insulin lispro and buffered regular human insulin administered via continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion pump.\n\n**Abstract:** This study compared glycemic control achieved with insulin lispro or buffered regular human insulin in patients with Type 1 diabetes treated with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) using an external insulin pump. In this 24-week multicenter, randomized, two-way crossover, open-label trial, 58 patients on CSII with adequate glycemic control received either insulin lispro or buffered regular human insulin for 12 weeks, followed by the alternate treatment for another 12 weeks. Efficacy and safety measures included hemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) at baseline and endpoint, home blood glucose monitoring, hypoglycemia, and frequency of pump catheter occlusion. Patients consumed a standard test meal on three occasions, with determinations of fasting, 1- and 2-h postprandial glucose values. Insulin lispro use was associated with a significantly lower HbA(1c) than was buffered regular human insulin (7.41+/-0.97 vs. 7.65+/-0.85 mmol/l; P=.004). Fasting serum glucose values before the test meal were similar between the two therapies. The 1-h (11.16+/-4.29 vs. 13.20+/-4.68 mmol/l; P=.012) and 2-h (9.64+/-4.10 vs. 12.53+/-4.64 mmol/l; P=.001) postprandial glucose concentrations were significantly lower during treatment with insulin lispro. No differences between treatments were observed in basal or bolus insulin doses, weight gain, or the incidence and rate of hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, or pump occlusions. When used in external pumps, insulin lispro provides better glycemic control than buffered regular human insulin with a similar adverse event profile.\n\nPlease generate a scientifically plausible Author Conclusion section for a review of this RCT, following Cochrane guidelines.\n"
}
] |
[
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "**Author Conclusions:** Our analysis suggests only a minor benefit of short acting insulin analogues in the majority of diabetic patients treated with insulin. Until long term efficacy and safety data are available we suggest a cautious response to the vigorous promotion of insulin analogues. For safety purposes, we need a long-term follow-up of large numbers of patients and well designed studies in pregnant women to determine the safety profile for both the mother and the unborn child.\n"
}
] |
Our analysis suggests only a minor benefit of short acting insulin analogues in the majority of diabetic patients treated with insulin. Until long term efficacy and safety data are available we suggest a cautious response to the vigorous promotion of insulin analogues. For safety purposes, we need a long-term follow-up of large numbers of patients and well designed studies in pregnant women to determine the safety profile for both the mother and the unborn child.
|
CD003287
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "You are an expert medical assistant for biomedical document abstractive summarization. Your task is to generate the **Author Conclusions:** section from Cochrane systematic reviews, given a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) title and its abstract.\n\nThe RCT title will be provided in the **RCT Title:** section, and the abstract will be provided in the **Abstract:** section. You will generate the **Author Conclusions:** section based on the information provided in the abstract, focusing on the implications for practice and research and following Cochrane guidelines.\n\nCochrane review conclusions are structured into implications for practice and implications for research, and must clearly reflect the certainty of evidence (e.g., using GRADE levels), the direction and magnitude of effects, and any limitations such as study heterogeneity or bias. They should be precise and actionable, summarizing whether an intervention likely benefits or harms patients and how confident we are in this judgment. Any uncertainty or evidence gaps should be plainly stated, with clear recommendations for future trials when important questions remain.\n\nUse coherent scientific language, and be as exact and accurate as possible in your conclusions. Avoid unnecessary repetition.\n\n**RCT Title:** Insulin lispro: a potential role in preventing nocturnal hypoglycaemia in young children with diabetes mellitus.\n\n**Abstract:** The long duration of action of soluble insulin given in the evening could contribute to the high prevalence of nocturnal hypoglycaemia seen in young children with Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). We examined whether replacing soluble insulin with insulin lispro reduced this risk in children on a three times daily insulin regimen.\n Open crossover study comparing insulin lispro vs. soluble insulin in 23 (16 boys) prepubertal children (age 7-11 years) with T1DM on three injections/day; long-acting isophane insulin remained identical. At the end of each 4-month treatment arm, an overnight 15-min venous sampled blood glucose profile was performed.\n Despite similar blood glucose levels pre-evening meal (lispro vs. soluble: mean +/- se 6.5 +/- 1.0 vs. 7.1 +/- 1.1 mmol/l, P = 0.5), post-meal (18.00-22.00 h) blood glucose levels were lower on insulin lispro (area under curve 138 +/- 12 vs. 170 +/- 13 mmol min-1 l-1, P = 0.03). In contrast, in the early night (22.00-04.00 h) the prevalence of low blood glucose levels (< 3.5 mmol/l) was lower on lispro (8% of blood glucose levels) than on soluble insulin (13%, P = 0.01). In the early morning (04.00-07.00 h) mean blood glucose and prevalence of low levels were no different between the two treatment groups, and fasting (07.00 h) blood glucose levels were similar (6.1 +/- 0.8 vs. 6.3 +/- 0.9 mmol/l, P = 0.8). At the end of each treatment arm there were no differences in HbA1c (lispro vs. soluble 8.6% vs. 8.4%, P = 0.3), or in insulin doses (mean, range 0.97, 0.68-1.26 vs. 0.96, 0.53-1.22 U/kg per day, P = 0.2).\n The shorter duration of action of insulin lispro given before the evening meal may reduce the prevalence of early nocturnal hypoglycaemia without compromising HbA1c in young children with T1DM.\n\nPlease generate a scientifically plausible Author Conclusion section for a review of this RCT, following Cochrane guidelines.\n"
}
] |
[
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "**Author Conclusions:** Our analysis suggests only a minor benefit of short acting insulin analogues in the majority of diabetic patients treated with insulin. Until long term efficacy and safety data are available we suggest a cautious response to the vigorous promotion of insulin analogues. For safety purposes, we need a long-term follow-up of large numbers of patients and well designed studies in pregnant women to determine the safety profile for both the mother and the unborn child.\n"
}
] |
Our analysis suggests only a minor benefit of short acting insulin analogues in the majority of diabetic patients treated with insulin. Until long term efficacy and safety data are available we suggest a cautious response to the vigorous promotion of insulin analogues. For safety purposes, we need a long-term follow-up of large numbers of patients and well designed studies in pregnant women to determine the safety profile for both the mother and the unborn child.
|
| Links | |
|---|---|
| Repository: | Github |
| Paper: | arXiv |
| Contact (Original Authors): | Byron C. Wallace ([email protected].) |
| Contact (Curator): | Artur Guimarães ([email protected]) |
``
{
"ReviewID":"CD000220",
"PMID":11519502,
"Title":"Failure of metronidazole to prevent preterm delivery among pregnant women with asymptomatic Trichomonas vaginalis infection.",
"Abstract":"Infection with Trichomonas vaginalis during pregnancy has been associated with preterm delivery. It is uncertain whether treatment of asymptomatic trichomoniasis in pregnant women reduces the occurrence of preterm delivery.\n We screened pregnant women for trichomoniasis by culture of vaginal secretions. We randomly assigned 617 women with asymptomatic trichomoniasis who were 16 to 23 weeks pregnant to receive two 2-g doses of metronidazole (320 women) or placebo (297 women) 48 hours apart. We treated women again with the same two-dose regimen at 24 to 29 weeks of gestation. The primary outcome was delivery before 37 weeks of gestation.\n Between randomization and follow-up, trichomoniasis resolved in 249 of 269 women for whom follow-up cultures were available in the metronidazole group (92.6 percent) and 92 of 260 women with follow-up cultures in the placebo group (35.4 percent). Data on the time and characteristics of delivery were available for 315 women in the metronidazole group and 289 women in the placebo group. Delivery occurred before 37 weeks of gestation in 60 women in the metronidazole group (19.0 percent) and 31 women in the placebo group (10.7 percent) (relative risk, 1.8; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.2 to 2.7; P=0.004). The difference was attributable primarily to an increase in preterm delivery resulting from spontaneous preterm labor (10.2 percent vs. 3.5 percent; relative risk, 3.0; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.5 to 5.9).\n Treatment of pregnant women with asymptomatic trichomoniasis does not prevent preterm delivery. Routine screening and treatment of asymptomatic pregnant women for this condition cannot be recommended.","Target":"Metronidazole, given as a single dose, is likely to provide parasitological cure for trichomoniasis, but it is not known whether this treatment will have any effect on pregnancy outcomes. The cure rate could probably be higher if more partners used the treatment.",
"Target" : "Metronidazole, given as a single dose, is likely to provide parasitological cure for trichomoniasis, but it is not known whether this treatment will have any effect on pregnancy outcomes. The cure rate could probably be higher if more partners used the treatment."
}
TO:DO
TO:DO
@inproceedings{AMIA-summarization-2021,
title = {{Generating (Factual?) Narrative Summaries of RCTs: Experiments with Neural Multi-Document Summarization}},
author = {Byron C. Wallace and Sayantan Saha and Frank Soboczenski and Iain J. Marshall},
Booktitle = {{Proceedings of AMIA Informatics Summit}},
year = {2021},
}
Thanks to araag2 for adding this dataset.