***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: A total of five studies including 868 participants met the inclusion criteria for this review. The five studies included in this review reported the value of drain fluid amylase at different thresholds and different postoperative days. The sensitivities and specificities were variable; the sensitivities ranged between 0.72 and 1.00 while the specificities ranged between 0.73 and 0.99 for different thresholds on different postoperative days. At the median prevalence (pre-test probability) of 15.9%, the post-test probabilities for pancreatic leak ranged between 35.9% and 95.4% for a positive drain fluid amylase test and ranged between 0% and 5.5% for a negative drain fluid amylase test. None of the studies used the reference standard of confirmation by surgery or by a combination of surgery and clinical follow-up, but used the International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula (ISGPF) grade B and C as the reference standard. The overall methodological quality was unclear or high in all the studies. Because of the paucity of data and methodological deficiencies in the studies, we are uncertain whether drain fluid amylase should be used as a method for testing for pancreatic leak in an unselected population after pancreatic resection; and we judge that the optimal cut-off of drain fluid amylase for making the diagnosis of pancreatic leak is also not clear. Further well-designed diagnostic test accuracy studies with pre-specified index test threshold of drain fluid amylase (at three times more on postoperative day 5 or another suitable pre-specified threshold), appropriate follow-up (for at least six to eight weeks to ensure that there are no pancreatic leaks), and clearly defined reference standards (of surgical, clinical, and radiological confirmation of pancreatic leak) are important to reliably determine the diagnostic accuracy of drain fluid amylase in the diagnosis of pancreatic leak.
Output:

We performed a thorough literature search for studies reporting the accuracy of drain fluid amylase in identifying pancreatic leaks. We included studies reported up to 20 February 2017. We identified five studies reporting information on 868 people who underwent pancreatic resections for cancer and non-cancerous growths. Most studies included only people in whom the head of the pancreas (right side of the pancreas) was removed. Variations in when the studies measured the amylase content in the drain and what level was considered abnormal meant that we were not able to combine the data to provide the overall results. We are uncertain whether drain fluid amylase is useful in identifying pancreatic leaks because of the following reasons. 1. The way that study authors confirmed that a participant had or did not have pancreatic leak was itself subject to error (i.e. there was no true 'gold standard'). 2. The studies included few participants. As a result, there was significant uncertainty in the results. 3. The studies were of poor methodological quality. This introduced additional uncertainty in the results. All of the studies were of unclear or low methodological quality, which may result in arriving at false conclusions.