***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 identified two eligible studies: one of CPAP and one of CNEP (published as an abstract). Both were unblinded studies with mainly unclear risk of bias due to lack of adequate information to assess this. The CPAP study enrolled 37 children to oxygen mask and CPAP and reported improvement in respiratory rate and oxygen saturation in both arms after 30 minutes of application. The CNEP study was published as an abstract and included 33 infants with bronchiolitis. In the CNEP study there was a reduction in the fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) (less than 30% within one hour of initiation of therapy) in four participants in the CNEP group compared to none in the control group (RR 10.7, 95% CI 0.6 to 183.9). One infant required CPAP and mechanical ventilation in the control group while all infants in the CNEP group were managed without intubation (RR for both outcomes 0.40, 95% CI 0.02 to 9.06). None of the trials reported on mortality. No adverse events were reported in ether of the included trials. There is a lack of well-designed, controlled trials of non-invasive modes of respiratory support in children with AHRF. Studies assessing the outcomes mortality, avoidance of intubation and its associated complications, hospital stay and patient comfort are needed.
Output:

We included two studies in the review: one study of CNEP included 33 participants younger than one year old who had bronchiolitis and one study of CPAP included 37 participants who had dengue fever related illness. Both studies reported short-term improvements but no reports of clinically significant outcomes are available. With a small number of patients in both studies, the safety of either approach could not be evaluated. Both studies have methodological issues and were under-powered (had too few patients to detect a significant difference). No adverse events were reported in ether of the included trials. Well-designed, multicentre, controlled studies with adequate numbers of infants and which assess clinically important outcomes are needed, as we cannot comment on the safety of the intervention as it was not evaluated in the current studies. The major limitation of this review is that it has a very limited number of studies which include a very small sample of children.