***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 seven trials reported in 30 references in the review (354 participants). In all trials, G-CSF was compared with placebo preparations. Dosage of G-CSF varied among studies, ranging from 2.5 to 10 microgram/kg/day. Regarding overall risk of bias, data regarding the generation of randomization sequence and incomplete outcome data were at a low risk of bias; however, data regarding binding of personnel were not conclusive. The rate of mortality was not different between the two groups (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.80, P = 0.55). Regarding safety, the limited amount of evidence is inadequate to reach any conclusions regarding the safety of G-CSF therapy. Moreover, the results did not show any beneficial effects of G-CSF in patients with AMI regarding left ventricular function parameters, including left ventricular ejection fraction (RR 3.41, 95% CI -0.61 to 7.44, P = 0.1), end systolic volume (RR -1.35, 95% CI -4.68 to 1.99, P = 0.43) and end diastolic volume (RR -4.08, 95% CI -8.28 to 0.12, P = 0.06). It should also be noted that the study was limited since the trials included lacked long enough follow up durations. Limited evidence from small trials suggested a lack of benefit of G-CSF therapy in patients with AMI. Since data of the risk of bias regarding blinding of personnel were not conclusive, larger RCTs with appropriate power calculations and longer follow up durations are required in order to address current uncertainties regarding the clinical efficacy and therapy-related adverse events of G-CSF treatment.
Output:

In this review, analysis of seven included studies with low risk of bias using G-CSF to improve the function of damaged heart of patient with heart attack failed to show any beneficial effects of this treatment. The rate of mortality was not different between the two groups (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.80, P = 0.55). Also, left ventricular parameters including left ventricular ejection fraction (RR 3.41, 95% CI -0.61 to 7.44, P = 0.1), end systolic volume (RR -1.35, 95% CI -4.68 to 1.99, P = 0.43) and end diastolic volume (RR -4.08, 95% CI -8.28 to 0.12, P = 0.06) did not show significant changes between the treatment and the control groups. There was no evidence that the study was associated with serious adverse effects, however it should be noted that the study was limited since the trials included lacked long enough follow up durations. Additionally four studies had either high or unclear risk of bias for blinding. Therefore, based on the results of the current study, G-CSF treatment should not be administered for patients with heart attack.