***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: While there were no eligible trials in people with VWD identified, two randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (total of 59 participants) in people with haemophilia undergoing dental extraction were included. One trial of tranexamic acid published in 1972 included 28 participants with mild, moderate or severe haemophilia A and B and one of EACA published in 1971 included 31 people with haemophilia with factor VIII or factor IX levels less than 15%. Overall, the two included trials showed a beneficial effect of tranexamic acid and EACA, administered systemically, in reducing the number of bleedings, the amount of blood loss and the need for therapeutic clotting factor concentrates. Regarding postoperative bleeding, the tranexamic acid trial showed a risk difference (RD) of -0.64 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.93 to - 0.36) and the EACA trial a RD of -0.50 (95% CI 0.77 to -0.22). The combined RD of both trials was -0.57 (95% CI -0.76 to -0.37), with the quality of the evidence (GRADE) for this outcome is rated as moderate. Side effects occurred once and required stopping EACA (combined RD of -0.03 (95% CI -0.08 to 0.13). There was heterogeneity between the two trials regarding the proportion of people with severe haemophilia included, the concomitant standard therapy and fibrinolytic agent treatment regimens used. We cannot exclude that a selection bias has occurred in the EACA trial, but overall the risk of bias appeared to be low for both trials. Despite the discovery of a beneficial effect of systemically administered tranexamic acid and EACA in preventing postoperative bleeding in people with haemophilia undergoing dental extraction, the limited number of randomised controlled trials identified, in combination with the small sample sizes and heterogeneity regarding standard therapy and treatment regimens between the two trials, do not allow us to conclude definite efficacy of antifibrinolytic therapy in oral or dental procedures in people with haemophilia. No trials were identified in people with VWD.
Output:

In the epsilon aminocaproic acid trial, the trial physicians assigned each person to receive a placebo or the active treatment based on a pair-matching technique for age, factor-assay and the number of extractions. The fact that the trial physicians made this decision may have introduced a selection bias. However, we do not think that this had a major impact on the trial's conclusions. Overall, the two trials were small and differed from each other in terms of how many of the people taking part had severe haemophilia, the simultaneous use of clotting factor concentrates and the different antifibrinolytic treatment schedules. We rated the overall quality of the evidence as low for using antifibrinolytic medicine to prevent bleeding in people with haemophilia after minor oral surgery or dental extractions. No evidence was found for people with Von Willebrand disease. It could however be argued that, if antifibrinolytic medicine works for people with haemophilia, it is likely that the medicine will also work for people with other bleeding disorders undergoing dental extractions or minor oral surgery.