***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: At this update six trials and a new comparison (Mechanical bowel preparation versus enema) were added. Altogether eighteen trials were analysed, with 5805 participants; 2906 allocated to MBP (Group A), and 2899 to no preparation (Group B), before elective colorectal surgery. For the comparison Mechanical Bowel Preparation Versus No Mechanical Bowel Preparation results were: 1. Anastomotic leakage for low anterior resection: 8.8% (38/431) of Group A, compared with 10.3% (43/415) of Group B; Peto OR 0.88 [0.55, 1.40]. 2. Anastomotic leakage for colonic surgery: 3.0% (47/1559) of Group A, compared with 3.5% (56/1588) of Group B; Peto OR 0.85 [0.58, 1.26]. 3. Overall anastomotic leakage: 4.4% (101/2275) of Group A, compared with 4.5% (103/2258) of Group B; Peto OR 0.99 [0.74, 1.31]. 4. Wound infection: 9.6% (223/2305) of Group A, compared with 8.5% (196/2290) of Group B; Peto OR 1.16 [0.95, 1.42]. Sensitivity analyses did not produce any differences in overall results. For the comparison Mechanical Bowel Preparation (A) Versus Rectal Enema (B) results were: 1. Anastomotic leakage after rectal surgery: 7.4% (8/107) of Group A, compared with 7.9% (7/88) of Group B; Peto OR 0.93 [0.34, 2.52]. 2. Anastomotic leakage after colonic surgery: 4.0% (11/269) of Group A, compared with 2.0% (6/299) of Group B; Peto OR 2.15 [0.79, 5.84]. 3. Overall anastomotic leakage: 4.4% (27/601) of Group A, compared with 3.4% (21/609) of Group B; Peto OR 1.32 [0.74, 2.36]. 4. Wound infection: 9.9% (60/601) of Group A, compared with 8.0% (49/609) of Group B; Peto OR 1.26 [0.85, 1.88]. Despite the inclusion of more studies with a total of 5805 participants, there is no statistically significant evidence that patients benefit from mechanical bowel preparation, nor the use of rectal enemas. In colonic surgery the bowel cleansing can be safely omitted and induces no lower complication rate. The few studies focused in rectal surgery suggested that mechanical bowel preparation could be used selectively, even though no significant effect was found. Further research on patients submitted for elective rectal surgery, below the peritoneal verge, in whom bowel continuity is restored, and studies with patients submitted to laparoscopic surgeries are still warranted.
Output:

This review has identified all known trials that compared any kind of mechanical bowel preparation with no preparation (Comparison 1) and mechanical bowel preparation with rectal enema (Comparison 2) in patients submitted to elective colorectal surgery.  Five new trials have been included in this third update of the review, bringing the total number of included trials to 18 (5805 participants). Analysis of these 18 trials showed no statistically significant differences in how well the three groups of patients (mechanical bowel preparation group, no preparation group and rectal enemas) did after surgery in terms of leakage at the surgical seam of the bowel ends, mortality rates, peritonitis, need for reoperation, wound infection, and other non-abdominal complications.  Consequently, there is no evidence that mechanical bowel preparation improves the outcome for patients. Further research on mechanical bowel preparation or enemas versus no preparation in patients submitted for elective rectal surgery and laparoscopic colorectal surgery is warranted.