***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 four trials (three RCTs and one cross-over trial) involving 139 participants. Blinding of participants and physicians was well reported within all trials. We judged the overall risk of bias across trials as low. Only two trials (with 63 and 18 participants, respectively) provided sufficient information to be included in the meta-analysis. We found no clear effect of rPMS on activities of daily living at the end of treatment (mean difference (MD) -3.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -16.35 to 10.35; P = 0.66; 1 trial; 63 participants; low-quality evidence) and at the end of follow-up (MD -2.00, 95% CI -14.86 to 10.86; P = 0.76; 1 trial; 63 participants; low-quality evidence) when comparing rPMS plus rehabilitation versus sham plus rehabilitation. We found no statistical difference in improvement of upper limb function at the end of treatment (MD 2.00, 95% CI -4.91 to 8.91; P = 0.57; 1 trial; 63 participants; low-quality evidence) and at the end of follow-up (MD 4.00, 95% CI -2.92 to 10.92; P = 0.26; 1 trial; 63 participants; low-quality evidence) when comparing rPMS plus rehabilitation versus sham plus rehabilitation. We observed a significant decrease in spasticity of the elbow at the end of follow-up (MD -0.48, 95% CI -0.93 to -0.03; P = 0.03; 1 trial; 63 participants; low-quality evidence) when comparing rPMS plus rehabilitation versus sham plus rehabilitation. In terms of muscle strength, rPMS treatment was not associated with improved muscle strength of the ankle dorsiflexors at the end of treatment (MD 3.00, 95% CI -2.44 to 8.44; P = 0.28; 1 trial; 18 participants; low-quality evidence) when compared with sham rPMS. No studies provided information on lower limb function or adverse events, including death. Based on the GRADE approach, we judged the quality of evidence related to the primary outcome as low, owing to the small sample size of the studies. Available trials provided insufficient evidence to permit any conclusions about routine use of rPMS for people after stroke. Additional trials with large sample sizes are needed to provide robust evidence for rPMS after stroke.
Output:

This is an update of the review published in 2017. We examined the evidence from four trials of rPMS (three individual RCTs and one cross-over trial) involving a total of 139 participants. Two studies compared rPMS against 'sham' stimulation (a very weak stimulation or a sound only). Two studies compared rPMS plus rehabilitation versus sham plus rehabilitation. We found little evidence for the use of rPMS to improve activities of daily living, muscle strength, upper limb function, and spasticity (unusual stiffness of muscles) in people after stroke. Although one trial reported that rPMS reduced spasticity of the upper limb, the effect was small and remains unclear. We classified the quality of the evidence as low for improving activities of daily living, mainly because one study had a small sample size. It remains unclear whether use of rPMS is useful for improving activities of daily living and functional ability in people after stroke. More trials involving larger numbers of participants are needed to determine the effects of rPMS.