***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: Six studies (involving 2105 women) are included. Overall, the included studies were not of high quality, and only two had both adequate randomisation sequence generation and allocation concealment. All studies that were able to be included enrolled only women at increased risk of complications. Comparison of traditional CTG versus no CTG showed no significant difference identified in perinatal mortality (risk ratio (RR) 2.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 4.42, 2.3% versus 1.1%, four studies, N = 1627, low quality evidence) or potentially preventable deaths (RR 2.46, 95% CI 0.96 to 6.30, four studies, N = 1627), though the meta-analysis was underpowered to assess this outcome. Similarly, there was no significant difference identified in caesarean sections (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.28, 19.7% versus 18.5%, three trials, N = 1279, low quality evidence). There was also no significant difference identified for secondary outcomes related to Apgar scores less than seven at five minutes (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.88, one trial, N = 396, very low quality evidence); or admission to neonatal special care units or neonatal intensive care units (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.39, two trials, N = 883, low quality evidence), nor in the other secondary outcomes that were assessed. There were no eligible studies that compared computerised CTG with no CTG. Comparison of computerised CTG versus traditional CTG showed a significant reduction in perinatal mortality with computerised CTG (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.88, two studies, 0.9% versus 4.2%, 469 women, moderate quality evidence). However, there was no significant difference identified in potentially preventable deaths (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.29, two studies, N = 469), though the meta-analysis was underpowered to assess this outcome. There was no significant difference identified in caesarean sections (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.24, 63% versus 72%, one study, N = 59, low quality evidence), Apgar scores less than seven at five minutes (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.30 to 5.74, two studies, N = 469, very low quality evidence) or in secondary outcomes. There is no clear evidence that antenatal CTG improves perinatal outcome, but further studies focusing on the use of computerised CTG in specific populations of women with increased risk of complications are warranted.
Output:

The review looked to see if using CTG during pregnancy might improve outcomes for babies by identifying those with complications. It looked for studies that included women at both increased risk, and at low risk, of complications. The review included six studies with all of the women at increased risk of complications. Four of the studies were undertaken in the 1980s and two in the late 1990s. The included studies were not of high quality. There were no differences in outcomes identified (low/very low quality evidence), although when computerised interpretation of the CTG trace was used, the findings looked promising. However, CTG monitors, associated technologies and the way midwives and obstetricians care for women with different complications in pregnancy have changed over the years. This means that more studies are needed now to see if outcomes for babies at increased risk of complications can be improved with antenatal CTG, particularly computerised CTG.