***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: Seventeen studies were not randomised and this increases the potential for selection bias. In addition, there was imbalance in the baseline characteristics of the participants included in all studies. All studies were classified as having a elevate risk of bias. The assessment of methodological quality of all non-randomized studies included in meta-analysis performed by the STROBE checklist has allowed us to identify several methodological limits in most of the analysed studies. At present, the information from the single RCT included (Ruers 2010) comes from an abstract of 2010 ASCO Annual Meeting where the allocation concealment was not reported; however in original protocol allocation concealment was adequately reported (EORTC 40004 protocol). The heterogeneity regarding interventions, comparisons and outcomes rendered the data not suitable. This systematic review gathers information from several controlled clinical trials and observational studies which are vulnerable to different types of bias. The imbalance between characteristics of patients in the allocated groups appears to be the main concern. Only one randomised clinical trial (published as an abstract), comparing 60 patients receiving RFA plus CT versus 59 patients receiving CT alone, was identified. This study showed that PFS was significantly higher in the group that received RFA. However, it was not able to provide information on overall survival. In conclusion, evidence from the included studies are insufficient to recommend RFA for a radical oncological treatment of CRLMs.
Output:

According to several studies RFA is technically feasible and safe for the treatment of CRLMs, however little is known about its efficacy in terms of overall survival (OS), disease free survival (DFS) and local recurrence. The aim of this review was to see if the treatment of CRLMs with RFA provides more benefit in terms of overall survival, disease free survival and local recurrence. This review include 18 studies (10 observational studies, 7 CCTs and an additional 1 RCT) comparing radiofrequency ablation with any other treatment. The heterogeneity regarding interventions, comparisons and outcomes rendered the data unusable and unsuitable for drawing conclusions. There is insufficient evidence to recommend the use of radiofrequency ablation for a radical treatment of liver metastases from colorectal cancer. High quality randomised clinical trials are required to answer on the potential benefit and harms associated with the use of radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of liver metastases from colorectal cancer.