***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: Eleven studies met our inclusion criteria. Two studies did not report any outcome data relevant to the review, so the results of the review are based on nine trials that contributed data. Primary outcomes were perinatal mortality, serious maternal or infant outcomes, adverse drug reactions, birth before 48 hours of trial entry, birth before 34 weeks' gestation and preterm neonates delivered without a full course of antenatal steroids completed 24 hours before birth. The quality of evidence in included trials was mixed; only three of the trials were placebo controlled. The included trials examined seven different comparisons: intravenous (IV) ritodrine plus oral or IV magnesium (sulphate or gluconate) versus IV ritodrine alone (three trials, 231 women); IV ritodrine plus indomethacin suppositories versus IV ritodrine alone (one trial, 208 women); IV ritodrine plus vaginal progesterone versus IV ritodrine alone (one trial, 83 women); IV hexoprenaline sulphate plus IV magnesium hydrochloride versus IV hexoprenaline sulphate alone (one trial, 24 women); IV fenoterol plus oral naproxen versus IV fenoterol alone (one trial, 72 women); oral pentoxifylline plus IV magnesium sulphate plus IV fenoterol versus IV magnesium sulphate plus IV fenoterol (one trial, 125 women); and, IV terbutaline plus oral metoprolol versus IV terbutaline alone (one trial, 17 women). Few studies with small numbers of women were available for each comparison, hence very little data were pooled in meta-analysis. In all trials, not many of the primary outcomes were reported. Three trials examined intravenous (IV) ritodrine plus IV or oral magnesium (sulphate or gluconate) compared with IV ritodrine alone. One study, with 41 women, reported more adverse drug reactions in the group receiving the combined tocolytics (risk ratio (RR) 7.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11 to 54.80). Two trials reported discontinuation of therapy due to severe side effects (results were not combined due to high statistical heterogeneity, I² = 83%); one trial reported increased severe side effects in the group receiving IV ritodrine alone (RR 7.79, 95% CI 1.11 to 54.80, 41 women); in the other trial there was no clear difference between groups (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.97, 107 women). Other primary outcomes were not reported. One trial assessed IV ritodrine plus indomethacin suppositories versus IV ritodrine alone. There were no significant differences between groups for perinatal mortality or serious neonatal morbidity. Results for other primary outcomes were not reported. There were no significant differences between groups receiving IV ritodrine plus vaginal progesterone compared with IV ritodrine alone for most outcomes reported, although the latency period (time from recruitment to delivery) was increased in the group receiving the combination of tocolytics. For other combinations of tocolytic agents, primary outcomes were rarely reported and for secondary outcomes results did not demonstrate differences between groups. It is unclear whether a combination of tocolytic drugs for preterm labour is more advantageous for women and/or newborns due to a lack of large, well-designed trials including the outcomes of interest. There are no trials of combination regimens using widely used tocolytic agents, such as calcium channel blockers (nifedipine) and/or oxytocin receptor antagonists (atosiban). Further trials are needed before specific conclusions on use of combination tocolytic therapy for preterm labour can be made.
Output:

Three trials examined the betamimetic drug ritodrine plus magnesium compared with ritodrine alone. The trials reported on adverse side effects, with inconsistency between the trials as to which treatment gave fewer severe side effects. Other outcomes were either not reported or not clearly different between treatment groups. One trial looked at ritodrine plus indomethacin versus ritodrine alone. There were no clear differences between groups for serious newborn ill health. Results for other outcomes were not clearly different. There were no clear differences between groups receiving ritodrine plus progesterone compared with ritodrine alone for most outcomes reported, although the time between giving the drugs and the birth was increased in the group receiving the combination of tocolytics. For other combinations of tocolytic agents, results did not demonstrate differences between groups. There were no trials of combination regimens using widely used tocolytic agents, such as calcium channel blockers (nifedipine) and oxytocin receptor antagonists (atosiban). Due to insufficient evidence, it is unclear if combination tocolytic regimens are more or less effective than using a single tocolytic drug, or if they have more adverse effects. Some widely used tocolytic drugs have not been examined in trials as part of combination regimens, so further research is needed.