***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 24 studies (2664 participants) of adult participants (older than 18 years of age) with respiratory distress due to ACPE, not requiring immediate mechanical ventilation. People with ACPE presented either to an Emergency Department or were inpatients. ACPE treatment was provided in an intensive care or Emergency Department setting. There was a median follow-up of 13 days for hospital mortality, one day for endotracheal intubation, and three days for acute myocardial infarction. Compared with SMC, NPPV may reduce hospital mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51 to 0.82; participants = 2484; studies = 21; I2 = 6%; low quality of evidence) with a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 17 (NNTB 12 to 32). NPPV probably reduces endotracheal intubation rates (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.62; participants = 2449; studies = 20; I2 = 0%; moderate quality of evidence) with a NNTB of 13 (NNTB 11 to 18). There is probably little or no difference in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) incidence with NPPV compared to SMC for ACPE (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.16; participants = 1313; studies = 5; I2 = 0%; moderate quality of evidence). We are uncertain as to whether NPPV increases hospital length of stay (mean difference (MD) −0.31 days, 95% CI −1.23 to 0.61; participants = 1714; studies = 11; I2 = 55%; very low quality of evidence). Adverse events were generally similar between NPPV and SMC groups, but evidence was of low quality. Our review provides support for continued clinical application of NPPV for ACPE, to improve outcomes such as hospital mortality and intubation rates. NPPV is a safe intervention with similar adverse event rates to SMC alone. Additional research is needed to determine if specific subgroups of people with ACPE have greater benefit of NPPV compared to SMC. Future research should explore the benefit of NPPV for ACPE patients with hypercapnia.
Output:

Randomised controlled studies compare treatments to find out if they are truly effective. We searched for randomised studies comparing non-invasive ventilation to routine care for adults with acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema. We compared studies treating people with non-invasive ventilation versus medical care. Medical care includes therapies such as providing extra oxygen and water pills to patients. The evidence upon which this review is based is current to September 2018. We sought to address if non-invasive ventilation in adults with acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema reduces rates of deaths, the need for a breathing tube, and heart attacks. We found 24 studies with 2664 participants comparing non-invasive ventilation to medical care alone. Non-invasive ventilation may decrease the chances of dying in hospital. The quality of results for studies reporting death in hospital was low. Studies were poorly conducted, and results were not similar across studies. In addition, non-invasive ventilation probably reduces the chances of needing a breathing tube. The quality of results for studies reporting breathing tube rates was moderate. Studies evaluating breathing tube rates were poorly conducted. Non-invasive ventilation probably has little or no effect on getting a heart attack. The quality of results for studies reporting heart attack rates was moderate, and studies had inconsistent results for this outcome. We are unsure if the length of hospital stay is improved with non-invasive ventilation. The quality of results for studies reporting hospital length of stay was very low, which was due to poor study conduct and inconsistent results. Finally, non-invasive ventilation may make little or no difference to adverse events (complications), compared to medical care. The quality of results for studies reporting adverse events was low. Studies evaluating adverse events were poorly conducted and had inconsistent results.