***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: Ten RCTs including 658 patients were finally included in this systematic review. Five trials compared nalbuphine with placebo. Data from one out of five studies for the outcome moderate/severe pain following nalbuphine compared to placebo gave a risk ratio (RR) 1 hour postoperatively (postop) of 0.1 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 0.71; low quality evidence) and a RR 2 hours postop of 0.14 (95% CI 0.02 to 1.06; low quality evidence). The estimated RR based on data from a single study indicated that nalbuphine reduced the requirement for analgesia two hours postop (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.27 to 0.84; low quality evidence). Two included trials compared nalbuphine with morphine and showed a nonsignificant lower or comparable RR for moderate/severe pain at 1 hour postop (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.12 to 5.74; low quality evidence), and 2 hours postop (RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.59 to 2.01; low quality evidence) for nalbuphine versus morphine. Four trials compared nalbuphine with tramadol for postoperative pain; data from one trial (per outcome) revealed a lower but nonsignificant RR for the need of additional rescue analgesics in children receiving nalbuphine (RR 2 hours postop 0.75; 95% CI 0.39 to 1.43; low quality evidence) (RR 12 hours postop 0.33; 95% CI 0.04 to 2.77; low quality evidence). One out of three trials comparing nalbuphine with pethidine demonstrated that the RR was not significantly lower following nalbuphine administration compared to pethidine (RR 2 hours postop 1.07; 95% CI 0.52 to 2.23; low quality evidence) (RR 24 hours postop 1.13; 95% CI 0.52 to 2.44; very low quality evidence). The most common adverse event was postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Only one included trial reported that the RR for PONV in the postoperative care unit (PACU) was not significantly higher following nalbuphine compared to placebo (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.16 to 6.42; low quality evidence) nor to morphine (RR 1.33; 95% CI 0.64 to 2.77; low quality evidence). Because the overall quality of available evidence was low, this systematic review could not definitively show that the analgesic efficacy of nalbuphine is superior compared to placebo. Furthermore, due to the lack of significant results the comparison with other common opioids is also unclear. The same holds true for the evidence focusing on adverse events following nalbuphine compared to placebo or other opioid administration. The evidence is limited, because studies did not report conclusively all important postoperative pain outcomes (e.g. number of patients with the need for rescue analgesia, postoperative pain scores). Thus, a quantitative analysis was not possible for many major aspects (e.g. rescue analgesia, pain scores) and heterogeneity could not be further explored.
Output:

In this review, we investigated how well nalbuphine worked, compared to placebo and other opioids, in children with postoperative pain. We also looked at the side effects. We performed a systematic literature search in July 2013. Ten randomised controlled trials with 658 patients were included. The patients were children aged from 0 - 18 years and most did not have any other relevant medical conditions. The overall quality of evidence was low, so this review could not definitively show that nalbuphine is better than placebo. The same holds true for the comparison with other opioids (morphine, tramadol, pethidine, piritramid). We were not able to comment on side effects due to the small numbers of participants in the trials. Future studies need to address these issues, including more robust data for effectiveness and side effects.