***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 six studies: five small, cross-over studies with 174 participants, and one parallel group study with 170 participants. Participants were treated with levetiracetam (2000 mg to 3000 mg daily) or placebo for between four and 14 weeks. Each study included participants with a different type of neuropathic pain; central pain due to multiple sclerosis, pain following spinal cord injury, painful polyneuropathy, central post-stroke pain, postherpetic neuralgia, and post-mastectomy pain. None of the included studies provided first or second tier evidence. The evidence was very low quality, downgraded because of the small size of the treatment arms, and because studies reported results using last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation for withdrawals or using only participants who completed the study according to the protocol, where there were greater than 10% withdrawals. There were insufficient data for a pooled efficacy analysis in particular neuropathic pain conditions, but individual studies did not show any analgesic effect of levetiracetam compared with placebo. We did pool results for any outcome considered substantial pain relief (≥ 50% pain intensity reduction or ‘complete’ or ‘good’ responses on the verbal rating scale) for four studies with dichotomous data; response rates across different types of neuropathic pain was similar with levetiracetam (10%) and placebo (12%), with no statistical difference (risk ratio 0.9; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.4 to1.7). We pooled data across different conditions for adverse events and withdrawals. Based on very limited data, significantly more participants experienced an adverse event with levetiracetam than with placebo (number needed to treat for an additional harmful event (NNH) 8.0 (95% CI 4.6 to 32)). There were significantly more adverse event withdrawals with levetiracetam (NNH 9.7 (6.7 to 18)). The amount of evidence for levetiracetam in neuropathic pain conditions was very small and potentially biased because of the methods of analysis used in the studies. There was no indication that levetiracetam was effective in reducing neuropathic pain, but it was associated with an increase in participants who experienced adverse events and who withdrew due to adverse events.
Output:

Levetiracetam is one of a type of medicine normally used to treat epilepsy. Some of these medicines are also useful for treating neuropathic pain. We looked for clinical trials in which levetiracetam was used to treat neuropathic pain. We found six studies in 344 adult participants with six different neuropathic pain conditions published up to July 2014. These studies were randomised and double blind, which usually means we can trust them. But all had one or more problems that could make the results look better than found in practice. There was no benefit from levetiracetam in any of the six conditions. More participants experienced adverse events with levetiracetam (67 in 100) than with placebo (54 in 100), and stopped taking levetiracetam because of adverse events (13 in 100) than stopped taking placebo (2 in 100). Adverse events included tiredness, dizziness, headache, constipation, and nausea. There was too little information, which was of inadequate quality, to be sure that levetiracetam works as a pain medicine in any of the neuropathic pain conditions investigated. Other medicines have been shown to be effective in some of these conditions.