***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: Sixteen studies involving 1063 participants were identified. The risk of bias for fifteen studies was high and along with imprecision and possible publication bias, this lowered our confidence in the results. There was low quality evidence that Tong-xi-luo reduced the rates of angiographic restenosis (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.34), myocardial infarction (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.66), heart failure (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.62), and use of revascularisation (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.45). There was very low quality evidence for the effect of Tong-xin-luo on all-cause mortality (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.06 to 2.56), angina (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.34) and death due to any cardiovascular event (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.12). Adverse events were seldom reported, and included gastrointestinal reactions and nausea. The addition of Tong-xin-luo to conventional Western medicine may possibly prevent restenosis and recurrence of cardiovascular events in patients with CHD after PCI. However, the data are limited by publication bias and high risk of bias for included studies. Further high-quality trials are required to evaluate the potential effects of this intervention.
Output:

Study characteristics: We included sixteen randomised controlled trials (1063 participants) comparing Tong-xin-luo capsules plus conventional treatment with placebo plus/or conventional treatment (literature search date: though June 2014). All studies were undertaken in China. The sample size was from 50 to 178 and the duration of follow-up ranged from three months to two years. Key results: We found that Tong-xin-luo may possibly reduce the risk of narrowing of a blood vessel detected by angiography, cardiovascular events (including myocardial infarction, angina and heart failure) and use of repeat procedure. Adverse events were seldom reported. Quality of evidence: Because of high risk of bias for fifteen studies, imprecision and possible publication bias, the quality of evidence was low or very low for all study outcomes.