***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 three randomised trials with 261 participants (mean age: 60 years) comparing RFCA (159 participants) to antiarrhythmic drugs (102) for non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. We generally assessed the included studies as having low or unclear risk of bias across multiple domains, with reported outcomes generally lacking precision due to low event rates. Evidence showed that RFCA was superior to antiarrhythmic drugs in achieving freedom from atrial arrhythmias (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.88; 3 studies, 261 participants; low-quality evidence), reducing the need for cardioversion (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.82; 3 studies, 261 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and reducing cardiac-related hospitalisation (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.72; 2 studies, 216 participants; low-quality evidence) at 12 months follow-up. There was substantial uncertainty surrounding the effect of RFCA regarding significant bradycardia (or need for a pacemaker) (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.63; 3 studies, 261 participants; low-quality evidence), periprocedural complications, and other safety outcomes (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.16 to 5.68; 3 studies, 261 participants; very low-quality evidence). In people with non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, evidence suggests a superiority of RFCA to antiarrhythmic drugs in achieving freedom from atrial arrhythmias, reducing the need for cardioversion, and reducing cardiac-related hospitalisations. There was uncertainty surrounding the effect of RFCA with significant bradycardia (or need for a pacemaker), periprocedural complications, and other safety outcomes. Evidence should be interpreted with caution, as event rates were low and quality of evidence ranged from moderate to very low.
Output:

We searched scientific databases from their inception to 1 April 2016 and found three studies where people are randomly allocated into one of two or more treatment groups (known as randomised trials). The three trials included 261 adults (mean age: 60 years) comparing catheter ablation (159 participants) to heart rhythm drugs (102) for non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation at 12 months follow-up. When compared to participants receiving heart rhythm drugs, those participants receiving catheter ablation were more likely to be free from atrial fibrillation, had reduced risk of being hospitalised due to cardiac causes, and had a reduced risk of needing cardioversion after 12 months. There was uncertainty surrounding the effect of catheter ablation with significant bradycardia (or need for a pacemaker), periprocedural complications, and other safety outcomes. Evidence should be interpreted with caution as evidence quality ranged from moderate to very low across the different outcomes due to the limitations of the original studies. It is likely that further high-quality and adequately powered trials may affect the confidence in reported results.