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

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

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

***DOCUMENTATION***

***EXAMPLES***

Input: We included four RCTs with a total of 463 participants (aged 42 years to 93 years); one report was only available as a published abstract. Meta-analysis of three RCTs suggests an increase in the proportion of ulcers completely healed with sulodexide as an adjuvant to local treatment (including wound care and compression therapy) compared with local treatment alone (rate of complete healing with sulodexide 49.4% compared with 29.8% with local treatment alone; RR 1.66; 95% CI 1.30 to 2.12). This evidence for sulodexide increasing the rate of complete healing is low quality due to risk of bias. It is unclear whether sulodexide is associated with any increase in adverse events (4.4% with sulodexide versus 3.1% with no sulodexide; RR 1.44; 95% CI 0.48 to 4.34). The evidence for adverse events is very low quality, downgraded twice for risk of bias and once for imprecision. Sulodexide may increase the healing of venous ulcers, when used alongside local wound care, however the evidence is only low quality and the conclusion is likely to be affected by new research. It is not clear whether sulodexide is associated with adverse effects. The standard dosage, route and frequency of sulodexide reported in the trials was unclear. Further rigorous, adequately powered RCTs examining the effects of sulodexide on healing, ulcer recurrence, quality of life and costs are necessary.
Output:

The review includes four studies involving 463 people with venous leg ulcers aged between 42 and 93 years old. The studies compared sulodexide used in combination with local treatment (including wound care and compression therapy) with local treatment alone. The duration of the four studies ranged from one month to three months. Three studies (438 participants) indicated that sulodexide might help to improve ulcer healing, as the proportion of ulcers that were completely healed was increased from 29.8% with local treatment to 49.4% when the participants also received sulodexide. It is unclear whether sulodexide results in more adverse effects (4.4% with sulodexide versus 3.1% without sulodexide). The overall quality of evidence for each outcome varied between low and very low, due to risk of bias, and imprecision (that is, for some outcomes, results from only one, small study were available). This plain language summary is up to date as of 1 July 2015.