***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: Of the 908 participants enrolled (three RCTs), 454 were allocated for drainage and 454 for no drainage. We found no new RCTs for this review update. Two trials reported the primary outcome measure of anastomotic dehiscence. There was no statistically significant difference in anastomotic dehiscence in participants treated with intra-abdominal drainage routinely compared to no treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.40, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.45 to 4.40; I2 = 0%; 2 RCTs; 809 participants). There was no statistically significant difference in mortality (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.45; I2 = 0%; 3 RCTs; 908 participants); surgical re-intervention (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.82; I2 = 29%; 3 RCTs; 908 participants); radiological dehiscence (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.83; I2 = 0%; 2 RCTs; 809 participants) and wound infection (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.51; I2 = 0%; 3 RCTs; 908 participants) in participants treated with routine prophylactic drainage compared to no treatment undergoing elective colorectal surgery. The quality of evidence was low according to GRADE method assessment. There was insufficient evidence for the use of prophylactic drains after elective colorectal anastomoses. The conclusions of this review were limited due to the nature of the available clinical data; The three included RCTs performed different interventions with relatively small sample sizes of eligible participants.
Output:

We included three clinical trials involving 908 participants. The trials were conducted in Germany and France. All trials compared routine anastomotic drainage versus no anastomotic drainage after elective colorectal surgery. The evidence was current to February 2015. This review showed no apparent difference in anastomotic leak, death, radiological (x-ray) evidence of anastomotic leak, wound infection or need for re-operation. We found insufficient evidence to support the use of routine prophylactic drains after elective colorectal anastomosis. We based our conclusion on limited evidence with relatively small numbers of participants; this means that it is difficult to detect differences between treatment groups that may be present. The quality of the evidence was low, making it impossible to draw firm conclusions about the use of routine prophylactic drains after elective colorectal anastomosis. Additional studies are needed to strengthen the conclusion drawn by this systematic review and to provide further analysis using modern colorectal surgery. We found no new evidence since the previous version of our systematic review of 2004.