***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: Three studies (146 participants) met our selection criteria. Two studies compared multidisciplinary, fast-track palliative care versus multidisciplinary standard care while on a waiting-list control, and one study compared a multidisciplinary palliative approach versus multidisciplinary standard care at different time points (12, 16, and 24 weeks). Two were RCTs with parallel design (total 94 participants) and one was a cross-over design (52 participants). The three studies assessed palliative care as a home-based intervention. One of the three studies included participants with 'neurodegenerative diseases', with MS people being a subset of the randomised population. We assessed the risk of bias of included studies using Cochrane's 'Risk of Bias' tool. We found no evidence of differences between intervention and control groups in long-time follow-up (> six months post-intervention) for the following outcomes: mean change in health-related quality of life (SEIQoL - higher scores mean better quality of life; MD 4.80, 95% CI -12.32 to 21.92; participants = 62; studies = 1; very low-certainty evidence), serious adverse events (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.12; participants = 76; studies = 1, 22 events, low-certainty evidence) and hospital admission (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.52; participants = 76; studies = 1, 10 events, low-certainty evidence). The three included studies did not assess the following outcomes at long term follow-up (> six months post intervention): fatigue, anxiety, depression, disability, cognitive function, relapse-free survival, and sustained progression-free survival. We did not find any trial that compared different types of palliative care with each other. Based on the findings of the RCTs included in this review, we are uncertain whether palliative care interventions are beneficial for people with MS. There is low- or very low-certainty evidence regarding the difference between palliative care interventions versus usual care for long-term health-related quality of life, adverse events, and hospital admission in patients with MS. For intermediate-term follow-up, we are also uncertain about the effects of palliative care for the outcomes: health-related quality of life (measured by different assessments: SEIQoL or MSIS), disability, anxiety, and depression.
Output:

Three studies involving 146 participants were included in this review. All three studies compared palliative care delivered in home visits versus usual care for people with MS. Two studies included only participants with MS. The third study (Ne-PAL) included participants with MS and other neurodegenerative diseases. In all three studies, interventions focused on assessment and management of symptoms and end-of-life planning. We did not find studies that compared different types of palliative care with each other. We are uncertain about differences between palliative care versus usual care for the following outcomes assessed at long-term follow-up (> six months post-intervention): change in health-related quality of life, adverse events and hospital admission. The included studies did not assess fatigue, cognitive function, relapse-free survival or sustained progression-free survival. We are uncertain whether palliative care interventions are beneficial for people with MS. There is low- or very low-certainty evidence regarding the difference between palliative care interventions versus usual care for long-term health-related quality of life, adverse events and hospital admission. This evidence is up-to-date as of 31 October 2018.