***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: One of 17 studies retrieved for full-text assessment for eligibility was included in the final analysis. This study included a total of 186 participants and investigated the effect of LMWH to prevent CVC-related thrombosis compared to standard care. The risk of bias of the study was assessed to be low, except for the unclear risk of selection bias (allocation concealment not reported) and detection bias since it was an open-label study. Nonetheless, outcome adjudication was blinded. However, overall the quality of the evidence was low due to the fact that the study was underpowered. The CIs for the risk of CVC-related thrombosis (symptomatic and asymptomatic events) were compatible with benefits of either LMWH (reviparin) or the control (RR for symptomatic thrombosis 1.03, 95% CI 0.21 to 4.93; RR for asymptomatic thrombosis 1.17, 95% CI 0.45 to 3.08). Similarly, only one patient in the standard care group suffered a major bleeding event, while minor bleeding was found in 53.3% of patients in the reviparin arm and in 44.7% of patients in the standard care arm (major bleeding RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.26; minor bleeding RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.58). Lastly, there were two deaths within the study and neither were the result of a venous thrombotic event (VTE), occurring in the standard care arm. No additional adverse effects were reported. Other pre-specified outcomes for this review were not reported. A single study reported imprecise effects for the risk of CVC-related thrombosis in children on a CVC anticoagulant prophylaxis regimen. The quality of the evidence was low due to the fact that the included study was clearly underpowered, hampering any conclusions in regards to the efficacy of LMWH prophylaxis to prevent CVC-related thrombi in children. Further prospective randomised studies are highly encouraged.
Output:

Therefore, we looked at all the research in children with central lines who received, or not, LMWH and only found one study with a total of 186 participants. This study did not have enough participants to show if this medication protects children with central lines from getting blood clots. The study also did not show that children on LMWH, at the doses given, experience too much bleeding because of its use. The included study did not report any additional adverse events. There were two deaths within the study in the standard care arm, and neither were due to a blood clot. Future studies looking at the role of this medication (LMWH) and if it protects children with central venous lines from getting blood clots are needed.