***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 eleven randomised clinical trials with 1664 participants who were mostly at low anaesthetic risk, low frequency of co-morbidities, low risk of conversion to open surgery, and low risk of infectious complications. None of the trials had low risk of bias. We found no statistically significant differences between antibiotic prophylaxis and no prophylaxis in the proportion of surgical site infections (odds ratio (OR) 0.87, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.54) or extra-abdominal infections (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.46). Heterogeneity was not statistically significant. This systematic review shows that there is not sufficient evidence to support or refute the use of antibiotic prophylaxis to reduce surgical site infection and global infections in patients with low risk of anaesthetic complications, co-morbidities, conversion to open surgery, and infectious complications, and undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Larger randomised clinical trials with intention-to-treat analysis and patients also at high risk of conversion to open surgery are needed.
Output:

This meta-analysis of eleven randomised clinical trials could not find sufficient evidence to support or refute the use of antibiotic prophylaxis to reduce surgical site infection or global infections in patients with low anaesthetic risk, low co-morbidities, and low-risk of conversion to open surgery, and undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. This is why large and well-designed randomised trials including patients with high-risk of conversion to open surgery should be conducted in order to define the beneficial or harmful effects of the antibiotics when given as a prophylaxis.