***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 15 trials (n = 888 randomised participants) were included, 13 were placebo controlled and three were head to head (two trials had more than two treatment arms). Eleven of the trials were conducted in Turkey, two in Japan, one in Iran and one in the UK. Most trials used the International Study Group criteria for Behçet's disease. Eleven different interventions were assessed. The interventions were grouped into two categories, topical and systemic. Only one study was assessed as being at low risk of bias. It was not possible to carry out a meta-analysis. The quality of the evidence ranged from moderate to very low and there was insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of any included intervention with regard to pain, episode duration, or episode frequency associated with oral ulcers, or safety of the interventions. Due to the heterogeneity of trials including trial design, choice of intervention, choice and timing of outcome measures, it was not possible to carry out a meta-analysis. Several interventions show promise and future trials should be planned and reported according to the CONSORT guidelines. Whilst the primary aim of many trials for Behç̧et's disease is not necessarily reduction of oral ulceration, reporting of oral ulcers in these studies should be standardised and pre-specified in the methodology. The use of a core outcome set for oral ulcer trials would be beneficial.
Output:

Authors from Cochrane Oral Health carried out this review of existing studies and the evidence is current up to 4 October 2013. The review includes 15 studies published from 1980 to 2012 in which 888 participants were randomised. Eleven of the trials were conducted in Turkey, two in Japan, one in Iran, and one in the UK. Thirteen different interventions were assessed, administered either topically or systemically. Topical interventions: sucralfate, interferon–alpha (different doses), cyclosporin A, triamcinolone acetonide ointment, phenytoin syrup mouthwash. Systemic interventions: aciclovir, thalidomide (different doses), corticosteroids, rebamipide, etanercept, colchicine, interferon–alpha, cyclosporin. There was insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of any included intervention with regard to pain, episode duration or episode frequency associated with oral ulcers, or the safety of the interventions. The quality of the evidence ranged from moderate to very low.