***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: Fourteen unique trials with 1497 randomised participants were included. Antifungal prophylaxis did not reduce mortality (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.44). In liver transplant recipients, a significant reduction in IFIs was demonstrated for fluconazole (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.57). Although less data were available for itraconazole and liposomal amphotericin B, indirect comparisons and one direct comparative trial suggested similar efficacy. Fluconazole prophylaxis did not significantly increase invasive infections or colonisation with fluconazole-resistant fungi. In renal and cardiac transplant recipients, neither ketoconazole nor clotrimazole significantly reduced invasive infections. Overall, the strength and precision of comparisons however were limited by a paucity of data. For liver transplant recipients, antifungal prophylaxis with fluconazole significantly reduces the incidence of IFIs with no definite mortality benefit. Given a 10% incidence of IFI, 14 liver transplant recipients would require fluconazole prophylaxis to prevent one infection. In transplant centres where the incidence of IFIs is high, or in situations where the individual risk is great, antifungal prophylaxis should be considered.
Output:

This review found that fluconazole, used as a preventive drug, significantly reduced the number of invasive fungal infections in liver transplant patients. More studies are needed to determine how effective antifungal drugs are for pancreas, heart, kidney and lung transplant patients.