***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 one RCT, two quasi-RCTs and 10 cohort studies (3925 participants). No studies were rated as low risk of bias for all criteria. Critical appraisal was constrained by a lack of information in most studies. The overall quality of the evidence was moderate. Seven studies (1432 participants) assessed cases of measles after immunoglobulin versus no treatment. Heterogeneity was explained by subgrouping according to the blood product used as an approximation of dose of immunoglobulin. When given within seven days of exposure, immunoglobulins were effective at preventing measles: gamma globulin (risk ratio (RR) 0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08 to 0.36), convalescent serum (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.29 to RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.54) and adult serum (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.59). The differences in the effectiveness of different blood products were supported by studies not included in the meta-analysis and by two studies (702 participants) that found gamma globulin more effective than serum (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.69). Based on three studies (893 participants) immunoglobulin was effective at preventing death due to measles compared to no treatment (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.44). Two studies included measles vaccine alone among the intervention groups. Meta-analysis could not be undertaken. Both studies suggested the vaccine was more effective than gamma globulin. No serious adverse events were observed in any of the included studies, although reporting of adverse events was poor overall. Non-serious adverse events included transient fever, rash, muscle stiffness, local redness and induration. Passive immunisation within seven days of exposure is effective at preventing measles, with the risk for non-immune people up to 83% less than if no treatment is given. Given an attack rate of 45 per 1000 (per the control group of the most recent included study), gamma globulin compared to no treatment has an absolute risk reduction (ARR) of 37 per 1000 and a number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) of 27. Given an attack rate of 759 per 1000 (per the attack rate of the other included study assessing gamma globulin), the ARR of gamma globulin compared to no treatment is 629 and the NNTB is two. It seems the dose of immunoglobulin administered impacts on effectiveness. A minimum effective dose of measles-specific antibodies could not be identified. Passive immunisation is effective at preventing deaths from measles, reducing the risk by 76% compared to no treatment. Whether the benefits of passive immunisation vary among subgroups of non-immune exposed people could not be determined. Due to a paucity of evidence comparing vaccine to passive immunisation, no firm conclusions can be drawn regarding relative effectiveness. The included studies were not specifically designed to detect adverse events. Future research should consider the effectiveness of passive immunisation for preventing measles in high-risk populations such as pregnant women, immunocompromised people and infants. Further efforts should be made to determine the minimum effective dose of measles-specific antibodies for post-exposure prophylaxis and the relative effectiveness of vaccine compared to immunoglobulin.
Output:

Based on seven studies (1432 people), of overall moderate quality, injecting antibodies into a muscle of people who came into contact with measles, but lacked their own antibodies, was effective at preventing them catching the disease compared to those who received no treatment. Using the modern day antibody preparation, people were 83% less likely to develop measles than those who were not treated. It was very effective at preventing them developing complications if they did contract measles and very effective at preventing death. The included studies generally did not intend to measure possible harms from the injections. Minor side effects were reported, such as muscle stiffness, redness around the injection site, fever and rash. Importantly, only two studies compared the measles vaccine with the antibody injection in this group of people, so no firm conclusions could be drawn about the relative effectiveness of these interventions. The antibody injection is often recommended for pregnant women, infants and immunocompromised people (if they do not have their own antibodies to measles and come into contact with someone who is contagious with measles). The included studies did not include these groups of people, so it is unknown whether the effectiveness of antibody injections is different for them. We were also unable to identify the minimum dose of antibodies required as only one study measured the specific amount of measles antibodies in the injections and one other study estimated this figure; the results of these two studies were not consistent. The evidence is current to August 2013.