***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: In the original 2010 review, we identified no relevant studies. This updated review included one RCT involving 245 participants that compared abdominal paracentesis and intraperitoneal infusion of catumaxomab versus abdominal paracentesis alone. The study was at high risk of bias in almost all domains. The data were not suitable for analysis. The median time to the first deterioration of QoL ranged from 19 to 26 days in participants receiving paracentesis alone compared to 47 to 49 days among participants receiving paracentesis with catumaxomab infusion (very low-certainty evidence). Adverse events were only reported among participants receiving catumaxomab infusion. The most common severe adverse events were abdominal pain and lymphopenia (157 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There were no data on the improvement of symptoms, satisfaction of participants and caregivers, and cost-effectiveness. Currently, there is insufficient evidence to recommend the most appropriate management of drainage for malignant ascites among women with gynaecological cancer, as there was only very low-certainty evidence from one small RCT at overall high risk of bias.
Output:

We searched for studies up to Novemeber 2019 that compared different ways of managing the drainage of fluid collected in the abdomen of women with gynaecological cancer (cancer that starts in a woman's reproductive organs). The original 2010 review found no relevant studies. This updated review included one randomised controlled trial (RCT: a type of study in which people are randomly assigned to receive different treatments) involving 245 women that compared drainage combined with catumaxomab (a medicine used to treatment malignant ascites) versus drainage alone. However, the results were insufficient to assess the difference between these treatments. Although women receiving drainage combined with catumaxomab had better quality of life (the general well-being of a person) for longer compared to drainage alone, we are very unsure of this evidence due to the small number of participants and trials. There were some side effects in the drainage plus catumaxomab group (e.g. pain, low white blood cell count), but they were not well reported. At present, there is insufficient data regarding the best management of drainage for malignant ascites among women with gynaecological cancer. The evidence is current to 4 November 2019.