***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 screened 574 records for eligibility and included 21 trials in the review. The 21 trials randomised 1490 women and addressed 11 comparisons. These were: differences in training supervision (amount, individual versus group), in approach (one versus another, the effect of an additional component) and the exercise training (type of contraction, frequency of training). In women with stress urinary incontinence, 10% of those who received weekly or twice-weekly group supervision in addition to individual appointments with the therapist did not report improvement post-treatment compared to 43% of the group who had individual appointments only (risk ratio (RR) for no improvement 0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 0.55, four trials). Looking at this another way, 90% of those who had combined group and individual supervision reported improvement versus 57% of women receiving individual supervision only. While women receiving the combination of frequent group supervision and individual supervision of pelvic floor muscle training were more likely to report improvement, the confidence interval was wide, and more than half of the 'control' group (the women who did not get the additional weekly or twice-weekly group supervision) reported improvement. This finding, of subjective improvement in both active treatment groups, with more improvement reported by those receiving more health professional contact, was consistent throughout the review. We feel there are several reasons why caution is needed when interpreting the results of the review: there were few data in any comparison; a number of trials were confounded by comparing two arms with multiple differences in the approaches to pelvic floor muscle training; there was a likelihood of a relationship between attention and reporting of more improvement in women who were not blind to treatment allocation; some trials chose interventions that were unlikely to have a muscle training effect; and some trials did not adequately describe their intervention. This review found that the existing evidence was insufficient to make any strong recommendations about the best approach to pelvic floor muscle training. We suggest that women are offered reasonably frequent appointments during the training period, because the few data consistently showed that women receiving regular (e.g. weekly) supervision were more likely to report improvement than women doing pelvic floor muscle training with little or no supervision.
Output:

This review included 21 studies in 1490 women and looked at whether one way of teaching, supervising or performing these exercises was better than another. Women who had regular and repeated contact with the person who taught them to do the exercises and monitored their progress were more likely to report they were improved after treatment. Further research is needed because there were problems interpreting the studies, which meant we could not draw any firm conclusions about many of the other possible ways of teaching, supervising or performing these exercises.