***TASK***
the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature

***INPUT***
the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature

***OUTPUT***
the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature

***DOCUMENTATION***

***EXAMPLES***

Input: We included two trials with 156 participants for this review. The comparisons included in these two trials were percutaneous cholecystostomy followed by early laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy (1 trial; 70 participants) and percutaneous cholecystostomy versus conservative treatment (1 trial; 86 participants). Both trials had high risk of bias. Percutaneous cholecystostomy with early laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy: There was no significant difference in mortality between the two intervention groups (0/37 versus 1/33; Fisher's exact test: P value = 0.47). There was no significant difference in overall morbidity between the two intervention groups (1/31 versus 2/30; Fisher's exact test: P value = 0.61). This trial did not report on quality of life. There was no significant difference in the proportion of participants requiring conversion to open cholecystectomy between the two intervention groups (2/31 percutaneous cholecystostomy followed by early laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus 4/30 delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy; Fisher's exact test: P value = 0.43). The mean total hospital stay was significantly lower in the percutaneous cholecystostomy followed by early laparoscopic cholecystectomy group compared with the delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy group (1 trial; 61 participants; MD -9.90 days; 95% CI -12.31 to -7.49). The mean total costs were significantly lower in the percutaneous cholecystostomy followed by early laparoscopic cholecystectomy group compared with the delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy group (1 trial; 61 participants; MD -1123.00 USD; 95% CI -1336.60 to -909.40). Percutaneous cholecystostomy versus conservative treatment: Nine of the 44 participants underwent delayed cholecystectomy in the percutaneous cholecystostomy group. Seven of the 42 participants underwent delayed cholecystectomy in the conservative treatment group. There was no significant difference in mortality between the two intervention groups (6/44 versus 7/42; Fisher's exact test: P value = 0.77). There was no significant difference in overall morbidity between the two intervention groups (6/44 versus 3/42; Fisher's exact test: P value = 0.49). The number of participants who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy was not reported in this trial. Therefore, we were unable to calculate the proportion of participants who underwent conversion to open cholecystectomy. The other outcomes, total hospital stay, quality of life, and total costs, were not reported in this trial. Based on the current available evidence from randomised clinical trials, we are unable to determine the role of percutaneous cholecystostomy in the clinical management of high-risk surgical patients with acute cholecystitis. There is a need for adequately powered randomised clinical trials of low risk of bias on this issue.
Output:

We identified two trials with 156 participants for this review. The comparisons included in these two trials were 1) percutaneous cholecystostomy plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (key hole removal of gallbladder) immediately after the general condition improves (percutaneous cholecystostomy followed by early laparoscopic cholecystectomy) versus planned delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed routinely (1 trial; 70 participants) and 2) percutaneous cholecystostomy versus conservative treatment (supportive treatment and antibiotic treatment) (1 trial; 86 participants). Both trials were at high risk of systematic error (prone to arrive at wrong conclusions because of the way the trials were designed and data were analysed). There was no significant difference in the proportion of participants who died or developed complications between any of the comparison groups. Quality of life was not reported in any of the trials. There was no significant difference in the proportion of participants requiring conversion to open cholecystectomy in the only comparison that reported this outcome (percutaneous cholecystostomy followed by early laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy). The mean total hospital stay and mean costs were significantly lower in the percutaneous cholecystostomy followed by early laparoscopic cholecystectomy group compared with the delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy group. Because of the few trials included in this review and due to their low sample size, there is risk of random errors (play of chance). Based on the current available evidence, we are unable to determine the role of percutaneous cholecystostomy in the clinical management of high-risk surgical patients with acute cholecystitis. There is a need for well-designed clinical trials with low risk of systematic error and random errors on this issue.