***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: The search identified 813 references on MEDLINE, 418 on EMBASE, 22 on CINAHL, 666 on PubMed, 291 on PsycINFO and 145 on CENTRAL. When all references were imported into EndNote and duplications were removed, 1348 references remained. Initial screening of titles and abstracts of these references revealed that 42 references were potentially eligible for this review. After reading the full-text versions, we identified no relevant trials comparing hrHPV and cytology testing versus cytology testing alone for detecting residual or recurrent disease during follow-up to LLETZ treatment of adult women with CIN. We found no evidence on the effects of hrHPV and cytology testing on residual or recurrent CIN2 or higher lesions, anxiety and psychosexual morbidity outcomes in women undergoing colposcopy and treatment for CIN. We found no evidence from RCTs to inform decisions about the best surveillance strategy for women following treatment for CIN. A prognostic systematic review is needed to investigate the risk of developing recurrent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2+ (CIN2+) in women with a positive hrHPV test after large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ) treatment.
Output:

We searched for randomised control trials (RCTs) that compared follow-up management strategies following LLETZ treatment for CIN. We checked 1348 titles and abstracts of potentially relevant references, but we identified no randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that met our inclusion criteria. We identified trials of interest, but they were deemed not relevant because of their focus on diagnostic outcomes and examination of how sensitive tests are, rather than on the effects of different follow-up strategies on long-term outcomes. Currently no evidence indicates whether hrHPV post-treatment testing is better or worse in terms of important long-term clinical outcomes. This review highlights the need for good quality trials in this area that do not focus solely on the diagnostic accuracy of testing. We found no evidence from RCTs to inform decisions about the best surveillance strategy following treatment for CIN. A prognostic systematic review is needed to investigate the risks and benefits of different follow-up strategies for women after LLETZ treatment.