***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: Nine studies were included, six of which were published as abstracts. Five studies were included in the meta-analysis (86 participants who undertook pulmonary rehabilitation and 82 control participants). One study used a blinded assessor and intention-to-treat analysis. No adverse effects of pulmonary rehabilitation were reported. Pulmonary rehabilitation improved the six-minute walk distance with weighted mean difference (WMD) of 44.34 metres (95% confidence interval (CI) 26.04 to 62.64 metres) and improved oxygen consumption (VO2) peak with WMD of 1.24 mL/kg/min-1 (95% CI 0.46 to 2.03 mL/kg/min-1). Improvements in six-minute walk distance and VO2 peak were also seen in the subgroup of participants with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) (WMD 35.63 metres, 95% CI 16.02 to 55.23 metres; WMD 1.46 mL/kg/min-1, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.39 mL/kg/min-1, respectively). Reduced dyspnoea (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.66, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.28) following pulmonary rehabilitation was also seen in the IPF subgroup (SMD -0.68, 95% CI -1.12 to -0.25). Quality of life improved following pulmonary rehabilitation for all participants on a variety of measures (SMD 0.59, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.98) and for the subgroup of people with IPF (SMD 0.59, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.03). Two studies reported longer-term outcomes, with no significant effects of pulmonary rehabilitation on clinical variables or survival at three or six months. Available data were insufficient to allow examination of the impact of disease severity or exercise training modality. Pulmonary rehabilitation seems to be safe for people with ILD. Improvements in functional exercise capacity, dyspnoea and quality of life are seen immediately following pulmonary rehabilitation, with benefits also evident in IPF. Because of inadequate reporting of methods and small numbers of included participants, the quality of evidence was low to moderate. Little evidence was available regarding longer-term effects of pulmonary rehabilitation.
Output:

Nine studies were included; however only five studies provided sufficient information for the analysis (86 participants receiving pulmonary rehabilitation and 82 participants not receiving pulmonary rehabilitation). Three studies included only people with IPF, and the other six studies included people with a variety of ILDs. The average age of participants ranged from 36 to 71 years. No reports described unwelcome effects of pulmonary rehabilitation. Immediately following pulmonary rehabilitation, participants could walk farther than those who had not undertaken pulmonary rehabilitation (on average, 44 metres farther in six minutes). Participants also improved their maximum exercise capacity and reported less shortness of breath and improved quality of life. People with IPF also experienced improvements in exercise capacity, dyspnoea and quality of life following pulmonary rehabilitation. Information was insufficient to establish whether ongoing effects were noted once pulmonary rehabilitation had stopped. Because of inadequate reporting of methods and small numbers of participants, the quality of evidence was low to moderate. This Cochrane plain language summary is current to June 2014.