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

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

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

***DOCUMENTATION***

***EXAMPLES***

Input: We identified two new studies for inclusion in the review update; the review now includes seven trials with 622 participants who presented to an emergency department with SVT. All included studies were RCTs, but only three described the randomisation process, and none had blinded participants, personnel, or outcome assessors to the intervention given. Moderate-quality evidence shows no differences in the number of people reverting to sinus rhythm who were treated with adenosine or CCA (89.7% vs 92.9%; OR 1.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 2.68; participants = 622; studies = 7; I2 = 36%). Low-quality evidence suggests no appreciable differences in major adverse event rates between CCAs and adenosine. Researchers reported only one case of hypotension in the CCA group and none in the adenosine group (0.66% vs 0%; OR 3.09, 95% CI 0.12 to 76.71; participants = 306; studies = 3; I2 = 0%). Included trials did not report length of stay in hospital nor patient satisfaction. Moderate-quality evidence shows no differences in effects of adenosine and calcium channel antagonists for treatment of SVT on reverting to sinus rhythm, and low-quality evidence suggests no appreciable differences in the incidence of hypotension. A study comparing patient experiences and prospectively studied adverse events would provide evidence on which treatment is preferable for management of SVT.
Output:

This review compares effectiveness and side effects of adenosine and CCAs in terminating SVT episodes. We included in the review seven trials involving 622 patients. Evidence is current to July 2017. Combined analysis of these trials showed no differences between adenosine and CCAs in successfully treating SVT. This finding is based on moderate-quality evidence. A temporary drop in blood pressure that did not require treatment was reported in only one of 152 study participants treated with CCAs, and low-quality evidence suggests that no patients treated with adenosine experienced low blood pressure. We have no data on length of stay in hospital nor on patient satisfaction. Moderate-quality evidence shows no differences in effects of adenosine and calcium channel antagonists for treatment of SVT on reverting to sinus rhythm, and low-quality evidence suggests no differences in cases of hypotension. None of these trials examined patient preferences, which is an important factor in deciding which drug is the 'best' treatment.