***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 included two trials involving a total of 66 patients in this review. Pooling analyses of data was not possible due to considerable heterogeneity between the trials and a lack of data in both trials. One study found a significant increase in respiratory muscle strength favouring inspiratory muscle training over sham inspiratory muscle training, but there was no significant difference between groups on quality of life. The other study showed that patients receiving inspiratory muscle training were more likely to improve their activities of daily living, quality of life and cardiorespiratory fitness than those patients who received no intervention. However, the main results were not compared directly with breathing retraining. Furthermore, neither of the trials assessed the safety and tolerance of inspiratory muscle training. There is insufficient evidence to support inspiratory muscle training as an effective treatment to improve function after stroke, and no evidence relating to the safety of inspiratory muscle training. Further well-designed RCTs are required.
Output:

The authors found two small heterogeneous randomised trials that investigated the effect of inspiratory muscle training. These studies do not provide enough evidence to draw any conclusions about the effect of inspiratory muscle training for patients with stroke. There is also no evidence relating to the safety of inspiratory muscle training. Future well-designed studies are needed.