***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 identified one trial comparing early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for people with mild acute pancreatitis. Fifty participants with mild acute gallstone pancreatitis were randomised either to early laparoscopic cholecystectomy (within 48 hours of admission irrespective of whether the abdominal symptoms were resolved or the laboratory values had returned to normal) (n = 25), or to delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy (surgery after resolution of abdominal pain and after the laboratory values had returned to normal) (n = 25). This trial is at high risk of bias. There was no short-term mortality in either group. There was no significant difference between the groups in the proportion of participants who developed serious adverse events (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.01 to 7.81). Health-related quality of life was not reported in this trial. There were no conversions to open cholecystectomy in either group. The total hospital stay was significantly shorter in the early laparoscopic cholecystectomy group than in the delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy group (MD -2.30 days; 95% CI -4.40 to -0.20). This trial reported neither the number of work-days lost nor the costs. We did not identify any trials comparing early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy after severe acute pancreatitis. There is no evidence of increased risk of complications after early laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Early laparoscopic cholecystectomy may shorten the total hospital stay in people with mild acute pancreatitis. If appropriate facilities and expertise are available, early laparoscopic cholecystectomy appears preferable to delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy in those with mild acute pancreatitis. There is currently no evidence to support or refute early laparoscopic cholecystectomy for people with severe acute pancreatitis. Further randomised controlled trials at low risk of bias are necessary in people with mild acute pancreatitis and severe acute pancreatitis.
Output:

We identified one trial comparing early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for people with mild acute pancreatitis. Out of the 50 participants included in this trial, 25 underwent early laparoscopic cholecystectomy while the remaining 25 underwent delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy. All 50 participants were alive at the end of the trial. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the proportion of participants who developed complications. Health-related quality of life was not reported in this trial. There were no conversions to open cholecystectomy in either group. The total hospital stay was shorter by approximately two days in the early laparoscopic cholecystectomy group than in the delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy group. The trial did not report the number of work-days lost or the costs. We did not identify any trials comparing early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy after severe acute pancreatitis. Based on the observations in the one trial included in this review, there appears to be no evidence of increased risk of complications after early laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Early laparoscopic cholecystectomy may shorten the total hospital stay in people with mild acute pancreatitis. If appropriate facilities and expertise are available, early laparoscopic cholecystectomy appears preferable to delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy in people with mild acute pancreatitis. There is currently no evidence to support or refute early laparoscopic cholecystectomy for people with severe acute pancreatitis. Further well-designed randomised controlled trials are necessary in people with mild acute pancreatitis and severe acute pancreatitis. The one trial identified is at high risk of bias, i.e. there was potential to arrive at wrong conclusions because of the way that the study was designed and conducted.