***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: Three trials with 102 participants were identified and met the criteria for inclusion in this review. These trials compared stilboestrol to placebo, sildenafil to placebo and ephedrine or etilefrine to placebo and ranged in duration from two weeks to six months. All of the trials were conducted in an outpatient setting in Jamaica, Nigeria and the UK. None of the trials measured our first primary outcome, detumescence but all three trials reported on the reduction in frequency of stuttering priapism, our second primary outcome. No significant effect of any of the treatments was seen compared to placebo. Immediate side effects were not found to be significantly different from placebo in the two trials where this information was reported. We considered the quality of evidence to be low to very low as all of the trials were at risk of bias and all had low participant numbers. There is a lack of evidence for the benefits or risks of the different treatments for both stuttering and fulminant priapism in sickle cell disease. This systematic review has clearly identified the need for well-designed, adequately-powered, multicentre randomised controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of specific interventions for priapism in sickle cell disease.
Output:

We found three trials set in Jamaica, Nigeria and the UK involving 102 people. In the trials, four different drug treatments (stilboestrol, sildenafil, ephedrine and etilefrine) were compared to placebo. The trials all looked at whether the treatments reduced how often attacks of priapism occurred. There was no difference between any of the treatments compared to placebo. Due to lack of evidence, we are not able to conclude the best treatment of priapism in sickle cell disease. More research is needed. We considered the quality of evidence to be low to very low as all of the trials were at risk of bias and all had low participant numbers.