***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 11 studies (674 participants). The risk of bias was high or unclear in all of the included studies. All studies compared needle aspiration to incision and drainage. All but one of the 11 studies reported on the primary outcome of recurrence. When we pooled data from the 10 studies the recurrence rate was higher in the needle aspiration group compared with incision and drainage: risk ratio (RR) 3.74 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.63 to 8.59; 612 participants). We detected moderate heterogeneity in this analysis (I2 = 48%). In interpreting the pooled result it is important to note that the evidence for this outcome was of very low quality. None of the other outcomes (adverse effects of the intervention, time to resumption of normal diet, complications of the disease process and symptom scores) were consistently measured across all studies. Only three studies reported on adverse effects/events associated with the intervention and only one such event in a single patient was reported (post-procedure bleeding following incision and drainage: 1/28, 3.6%) (very low-quality evidence). Time to resumption of normal diet was compared in two studies; neither found an obvious difference between needle aspiration and incision and drainage (very low-quality evidence). Only three studies stated that they would report complications of the disease process. In these three studies, the only complication reported was admission to hospital for dehydration in two patients who underwent incision and drainage (2/13, 6.7%). Symptom scores were measured in four studies; three evaluated pain using different scales and one other symptoms. The data could not be pooled in a meta-analysis. Two studies evaluating procedural pain reported this to be lower in the needle aspiration groups. One study found comparable rates of pain resolution at five days post-intervention between groups. The quality of the evidence for symptom scores was very low. Although a number of studies have sought to evaluate whether or not needle aspiration or incision and drainage is more effective in patients with peritonsillar abscess, there is no high-quality evidence to allow a firm conclusion to be drawn and the answer remains uncertain. Very low-quality evidence suggests that incision and drainage may be associated with a lower chance of recurrence than needle aspiration. There is some very low-quality evidence to suggest that needle aspiration is less painful.
Output:

We included 11 studies with a total of 674 participants. The participants in the studies were aged from 8 to 79. The studies were conducted in a number of countries (six from Pakistan, two from the USA, one from Taiwan and two from South Africa). All but one of the 11 studies reported the difference in recurrence rate between needle aspiration and incision and drainage. Four studies compared symptom scores associated with the procedure and two studies compared time to resumption of normal diet. Three studies reported adverse effects/events associated with the intervention. Two studies reported complications of the disease process itself. The evidence is current to August 2016. Ten studies reported on the recurrence of peritonsillar abscess (our main outcome). Most of them did not clearly define 'recurrence' and they varied in the timing of its assessment, however we were able to combine (pool) the data from these studies. When we pooled the data the recurrence rate was higher in the needle aspiration group compared with incision and drainage. It is important to note that the evidence for this outcome was of very low quality. Some studies found that patients had more pain when they had incision and drainage. We identified problems or potential problems in all of the included studies. The most important of these was that the studies did not all assess recurrence in the same way, at the same time, using the same criteria. The quality of the evidence for all of the outcomes that we looked at was very low.