***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 10 RCTs that enrolled a total of 1629 participants. The characteristics of all studies matched the requirements to compare the two types of surgical reconstruction following pancreatoduodenectomy. All studies reported incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula (the main complication) and postoperative mortality. Overall, the risk of bias in included studies was high; only one included study was assessed at low risk of bias. There was little or no difference between PJ and PG in overall risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula (PJ 24.3%; PG 21.4%; RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.62; 7 studies; low-quality evidence). Inclusion of studies that clearly distinguished clinically significant pancreatic fistula resulted in us being uncertain whether PJ improved the risk of pancreatic fistula when compared with PG (19.3% versus 12.8%; RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.47; very low-quality evidence). PJ probably has little or no difference from PG in risk of postoperative mortality (3.9% versus 4.8%; RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.34; moderate-quality evidence). We found low-quality evidence that PJ may differ little from PG in length of hospital stay (MD 1.04 days, 95% CI -1.18 to 3.27; 4 studies, N = 502) or risk of surgical re-intervention (11.6% versus 10.3%; RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.61; 7 studies, N = 1263). We found moderate-quality evidence suggesting little difference between PJ and PG in terms of risk of any surgical complication (46.5% versus 44.5%; RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.18; 9 studies, N = 1513). PJ may slightly improve the risk of postoperative bleeding (9.3% versus 13.8%; RR 0.69, 95% CI: 0.51 to 0.93; low-quality evidence; 8 studies, N = 1386), but may slightly worsen the risk of developing intra-abdominal abscess (14.7% versus 8.0%; RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.81; 7 studies, N = 1121; low quality evidence). Only one study reported quality of life (N = 320); PG may improve some quality of life parameters over PJ (low-quality evidence). No studies reported cost analysis data. There is no reliable evidence to support the use of pancreatojejunostomy over pancreatogastrostomy. Future large international studies may shed new light on this field of investigation.
Output:

We included 10 randomized controlled studies (1629 participants) that compared PJ and PG in people undergoing Whipple surgery. The studies' features were adequate to make feasible and the planned comparison between the two surgical techniques. The primary outcomes were pancreatic fistula and death. Secondary outcomes were duration of hospitalization, surgical re-intervention, overall complications, bleeding, abdominal abscess, quality of life, and costs. We could not demonstrate that one surgical procedure is better than the other. PJ may have little or no difference from PG in overall postoperative pancreatic fistula rate (PJ 24.3%; PG 21.4%), duration of hospitalization, or need for surgical re-intervention (11.6% versus 10.3%). Only seven studies clearly distinguished clinically significant pancreatic fistula which required a change in the patient's management. We are uncertain whether PJ improves the risk of clinically significant pancreatic fistula when compared with PG (19.3% versus 12.8%). PJ probably has little or no difference from PG in rates of death (3.9% versus 4.8%) or complications (46.5% versus 44.5%). The risk of postoperative bleeding in participants undergoing PJ was slightly lower than those undergoing PG (9.3% versus 13.8%), but this benefit appeared to be balanced with a higher risk of developing an abdominal abscess in PJ participants (14.7% versus 8.0%). Only one study reported quality of life; PG may be better than PJ in some quality of life parameters. Cost data were not reported in any studies. Most studies had flaws in methodological quality, reporting or both. Overall, the quality of evidence was low.