***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: Five randomised trials involving 664 participants were analysed. Five different herbal medicines were tested in these trials, including Huo-Xue-Tong-Fu decoction, Xiao-Cheng-Qi-Tang decoction, a combination of Xiao-Cheng-Qi-Tang and Si-Jun-Zi-Tang decoctions, Chang-Nian-Lian-Song-Jie-Tang decoction, and Fufang-Da-Cheng-Qi-Tang decoction. There were variations in the tested herbal compositions and methods of medicine administration. The main outcomes reported in the trials were effects on abdominal pain, abdominal distension, constipation defection, time of first defecation after treatment, and reoperation rate during the course of the disease. Secondary outcomes selected for this review were not available, including complications such as small bowel perfusion (bowel resection, system complications, and other possible complications), length of hospital stay, cost of hospitalisation, and time from admission to surgical intervention. The results of five trials showed that patients receiving TCM combined with conventional therapy seemed to have improved outcomes compared with patients receiving conventional treatment alone (OR 4.24, 95% CI 2.83 to 6.36). However, we cannot conclusively determine the efficacy of TCM in this review due to inadequate reporting, low methodological quality, and the prevalence of various biases in the reviewed studies. Furthermore, because none of the reviewed trials discussed adverse events, we could not evaluate the safety of TCM for adhesive SBO patients. All trials were conducted and published in China. Although many studies have assessed the use of TCM products for adhesive SBO, most were excluded from this review due to their methodological limitations. This systematic review did not find sufficient evidence to support the objective efficacy and safety of TCM for patients with adhesive SBO. The positive evidence should be interpreted with caution given the insufficient number of studies with large sample sizes, the absence of well-designed, high-quality trials, and the lack of safety information. Therefore, further studies with larger sample sizes and high-quality, randomised, and controlled trials are necessary to produce more accurate and meaningful data on the efficacy of Chinese herbal medicines for adhesive SBO.
Output:

This review examined five randomised trials with five different Chinese herbal medicines, involving a total of 664 participants. All trials were conducted and published in China. None of the trials mentioned adverse effects. The methodological limitations in these studies are quite obvious, and any conclusions based on their results should be made with caution. This systematic review did not find sufficient evidence to support the objective efficacy and safety of TCM for adhesive SBO patients. Further high-quality trials evaluating oral TCM for adhesive SBO are urgently needed.