***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 13 trials involving 514 participants. There was a significant effect of treatment on subjective reports of memory in the short term (standard mean difference (SMD) 0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08 to 0.64, P = 0.01, moderate quality of evidence), but not the long term (SMD 0.31, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.64, P = 0.06, low quality of evidence). The SMD for the subjective reports of memory had small to moderate effect sizes. The results do not show any significant effect of memory rehabilitation on performance in objective memory tests, mood, functional abilities, or quality of life. No information was available on adverse events. Participants who received cognitive rehabilitation for memory problems following a stroke reported benefits from the intervention on subjective measures of memory in the short term (i.e. the first assessment point after the intervention, which was a minimum of four weeks). This effect was not, however, observed in the longer term (i.e. the second assessment point after the intervention, which was a minimum of three months). There was, therefore, limited evidence to support or refute the effectiveness of memory rehabilitation. The evidence was limited due to the poor quality of reporting in many studies, lack of consistency in the choice of outcome measures, and small sample sizes. There is a need for more robust, well-designed, adequately powered, and better-reported trials of memory rehabilitation using common standardised outcome measures.
Output:

The evidence is current to May 2016. In this review, we included 13 studies with 514 participants. Seven trials were conducted with community participants, four with in-patients, and two with mixed community and in-patient samples. Participants received various types of memory retraining techniques, including training using computer programs and training in the use of memory aids, such as diaries or calendars. In three studies treatment was provided in groups and in 10 studies treatment was provided individually. Treatment lasted between two weeks and 10 weeks. In these studies, those who received the treatment were compared with a control group. The control group included those who did not receive cognitive rehabilitation or received another form of treatment. The control groups varied. Some studies had a control group wherein people received their usual care, whereas in others individuals in the control groups were placed on a waiting list to receive cognitive rehabilitation. We found that people who received cognitive rehabilitation reported fewer memory problems in daily life immediately after treatment compared with the control groups. This represents a small to moderate effect of the intervention in comparison to the control group. However, there was no evidence that the benefits persisted in the long term. We found no evidence that cognitive rehabilitation improved people's independence in activities of daily living, mood, or quality of life. There was no information about any harm caused to participants from taking part in cognitive rehabilitation. The quality of the evidence ranged from very low (effect on outcomes that relate to everyday activities) to moderate (effect on self-reported memory problems, memory tests, and mood measures). There were a number of flaws in these studies, such as having very few people in them, and these could have affected our findings.