***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: Four trials were included. These involved a total of 278, mainly adult, participants with 283 mallet finger injuries. All four trials were methodologically flawed, including inadequate outcome assessment. Three trials compared different types of finger splints versus a standard Stack splint. One trial found a lower incidence of treatment failure in participants treated with a perforated custom-made splint. One trial found there were fewer complications in participants treated with a padded aluminium-alloy malleable finger splint; however, the incidence of treatment failure was similar in the two treatment groups. One trial evaluating the Abouna splint found a similar incidence of treatment failure in the two groups. However, the Abouna splint often needed replacing due to disintegration of its rubber cover and rusting of the exposed wires and was also less popular with participants. The fourth trial found no statistically significant differences between participants whose mallet finger was treated with Kirschner wire fixation and those with a Pryor and Howard splint. Similar numbers had complications in the two groups. There was insufficient evidence from comparisons tested within randomised controlled trials to establish the relative effectiveness of different, either custom-made or off-the-shelf, finger splints used for treating mallet finger injury. There was a useful reminder that splints used for prolonged immobilisation should be robust enough for everyday use, and of the central importance of patient adherence to instructions for splint use. There was insufficient evidence to determine when surgery is indicated.
Output:

Four randomised trials were included in the review. These involved a total of 278, mainly adult, participants with 283 mallet finger injuries. The methods of all four trials were flawed leading to concerns about bias. There was no pooling of data. Three trials compared different types of finger splints versus a standard Stack splint. One trial found less treatment failure in participants treated with a perforated custom-made splint. A second trial found there were fewer complications in participants treated with a padded aluminium-alloy malleable finger splint. However, the incidence of treatment failure was similar in the two treatment groups of this trial. The third trial evaluated the Abouna splint and found a similar incidence of treatment failure in the two groups. However, the Abouna splint often needed replacing due to disintegration of its rubber cover and rusting of the exposed wires and was also less popular with participants. The fourth trial in the review found no significant differences between participants whose mallet finger was treated with Kirschner wire fixation and those with a Pryor and Howard splint. Similar numbers had complications in the two groups. The review concluded that there was not enough evidence to show which is the best way to treat mallet finger injury. It noted, however, that splints used for prolonged immobilisation should be robust enough for everyday use.