***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 two RCTs with 297 participants comparing PUL to sham surgery or TURP. The mean age was 65.6 years and mean International Prostate Symptom Score was 22.7. Mean prostate volume was 42.2 mL. We considered review outcomes measured up to and including 12 months after randomization as short-term and later than 12 months as long-term. For patient-reported outcomes, lower scores indicate more urological symptom improvement and higher quality of life. In contrast, higher scores refers to better erectile and ejaculatory function. PUL versus sham: based on one study of 206 randomized participants with short follow-up (up to three months), PUL may lead to a clinically important improvement in urological symptom scores (mean difference (MD) –5.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) –7.44 to –2.96; low-certainty evidence) and likely improves quality of life (MD –1.20, 95% CI –1.67 to –0.73; moderate-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether PUL increases major adverse events (very low-certainty evidence). There were no retreatments reported in either study group by three months. PUL likely results in little to no difference in erectile function (MD –1.40, 95% CI –3.24 to 0.44; moderate-certainty evidence) and ejaculatory function (MD 0.50, 95% CI –0.38 to 1.38; moderate-certainty evidence). PUL versus TURP: based on one study of 91 randomized participants with a short follow-up (up to 12 months), PUL may result in a substantially lesser improvement in urological symptom scores than TURP (MD 4.50, 95% CI 1.10 to 7.90; low-certainty evidence). PUL may result in a slightly reduced or similar quality of life (MD 0.30, 95% CI –0.49 to 1.09; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain whether PUL may cause fewer major adverse events but increased retreatments (both very low-certainty evidence). PUL probably results in little to no difference in erectile function (MD 0.80, 95% CI –1.50 to 3.10; moderate-certainty evidence), but probably results in substantially better ejaculatory function (MD 5.00, 95% CI 3.08 to 6.92; moderate-certainty evidence). With regards to longer term follow-up (up to 24 months) based on one study of 91 randomized participants, PUL may result in a substantially lesser improvement in urological symptom score (MD 6.10, 95% CI 2.16 to 10.04; low-certainty evidence) and result in little worse to no difference in quality of life (MD 0.80, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.60; low-certainty evidence). The study did not report on major adverse events. We are very uncertain whether PUL increases retreatment (very low-certainty evidence). PUL likely results in little to no difference in erectile function (MD 1.60, 95% CI –0.80 to 4.00; moderate-certainty evidence), but may result in substantially better ejaculatory function (MD 4.30, 95% CI 2.17 to 6.43; low-certainty evidence). We were unable to perform any of the predefined secondary analyses for either comparison. We found no evidence for other comparisons such as PUL versus laser ablation or enucleation. PUL appears less effective than TURP in improving urological symptoms both short-term and long term, while quality of life outcomes may be similar. The effect on erectile function appears similar but ejaculatory function may be better. We are uncertain about major adverse events short-term and found no long-term information. We are very uncertain about retreatment rates both short-term and long-term. We were unable to assess the effects of PUL in subgroups based on age, prostate size, or symptom severity and also could not assess how PUL compared to other surgical management approaches. Given the large numbers of alternative treatment modalities to treat men with LUTS secondary to BPH, this represents important information that should be shared with men considering surgical treatment.
Output:

We included two randomized controlled studies (clinical trials where people are randomly put into one of two or more treatment groups) with 297 men comparing PUL to sham surgery (participants are made to believe they received treatment, while in reality they did not) or transurethral resection of prostate (TURP: removing the excess prostate growth using a camera and an electrically activated resecting loop inserted via the penis). The average age of the participants was 65.6 years. Compared to sham surgery up to three months, PUL may improve urinary symptoms and likely improves quality of life without additional unwanted side effects after surgery. In the short term, there were no additional surgeries because PUL did not work. PUL likely does not make erections or ejaculation worse. Compared to TURP up to 24 months, PUL may be less effective in relieving urinary symptoms, but result in similar quality of life. PUL may preserve ejaculation, but may have less unwanted effects on erections than TURP. However, we are either very uncertain or have no evidence about serious unwanted side effects or the need for additional treatment after surgery. Findings of this review are up-to-date until 31 January, 2019. The certainty of evidence for most outcomes was low. This means that the true effect may be substantially different from what this review shows.