***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 31 trials with a total of 2257 participants in the subacute or chronic stages of stroke. The methodological quality of most of the included trials was not high. The quality of evidence for the main outcomes was low or very low based on the assessment by the system of Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Two trials compared real acupuncture plus baseline treatment with sham acupuncture plus baseline treatment. There was no evidence of differences in the changes of motor function and quality of life between real acupuncture and sham acupuncture for people with stroke in the convalescent stage. Twenty-nine trials compared acupuncture plus baseline treatment versus baseline treatment alone. Compared with no acupuncture, for people with stroke in the convalescent phase, acupuncture had beneficial effects on the improvement of dependency (activity of daily living) measured by Barthel Index (nine trials, 616 participants; mean difference (MD) 9.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 4.34 to 14.05; GRADE very low), global neurological deficiency (seven trials, 543 participants; odds ratio (OR) 3.89, 95% CI 1.78 to 8.49; GRADE low), and specific neurological impairments including motor function measured by Fugl-Meyer Assessment (four trials, 245 participants; MD 6.16, 95% CI 4.20 to 8.11; GRADE low), cognitive function measured by the Mini-Mental State Examination (five trials, 278 participants; MD 2.54, 95% CI 0.03 to 5.05; GRADE very low), depression measured by the Hamilton Depression Scale (six trials, 552 participants; MD -2.58, 95% CI -3.28 to -1.87; GRADE very low), swallowing function measured by drinking test (two trials, 200 participants; MD -1.11, 95% CI -2.08 to -0.14; GRADE very low), and pain measured by the Visual Analogue Scale (two trials, 118 participants; MD -2.88, 95% CI -3.68 to -2.09; GRADE low). Sickness caused by acupuncture and intolerance of pain at acupoints were reported in a few participants with stroke in the acupuncture groups. No data on death, the proportion of people requiring institutional care or requiring extensive family support, and all-cause mortality were available in all included trials. From the available evidence, acupuncture may have beneficial effects on improving dependency, global neurological deficiency, and some specific neurological impairments for people with stroke in the convalescent stage, with no obvious serious adverse events. However, most included trials were of inadequate quality and size. There is, therefore, inadequate evidence to draw any conclusions about its routine use. Rigorously designed, randomised, multi-centre, large sample trials of acupuncture for stroke are needed to further assess its effects.
Output:

We identified 31 studies to July 2015 for inclusion in the review. These included a total of 2257 participants who had had a stroke more than one month previously. They all investigated acupuncture aimed at promoting recovery compared with no acupuncture or sham acupuncture. Outcomes included measures of daily activities (activities of daily living), neurological function, movement, cognition, depression, swallowing, pain, and quality of life. Most of the studies (29/31) were conducted in China; the studies varied considerably with respect to the time of stroke, specific techniques used, and the frequency of acupuncture. We found some evidence that acupuncture improved activities of daily living and a number of aspects of neurological function. However, these conclusions were based on studies with low quality evidence. No serious side effects were reported and there was no information on the effects of acupuncture on death or the need for institutional care. It proved difficult to reliably determine the quality of the evidence because of poor reporting of study characteristics. Therefore, we have described most conclusions as having low or very low quality evidence.